Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

North Cotswold Rural District Council Bill [Lords].
Canvey Island Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Dartford Tunnel Bill [Lords].
Liverpool United Hospital Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords],

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement as to what recent action has been taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the purpose of improving the relationship existing between this country and the Irish Free State?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am not in a position to add anything to previous statements regarding relations between this country and the Irish Free State.

Mr. Day: In view of the widespread desire for an early settlement of matters, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the initiative with a view of getting a settlement?

Mr. MacDonald: I share to the full a desire for a settlement which will be satisfactory to both sides, and I can assure the hon. Member that we shall not lose any opportunity which presents itself to attain that end.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of exports of British manufactures to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the nine months July, 1936, to March, 1937; and how these figures compare with the value of similar exports in the period July, 1935, to March, 1936?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): During the nine months ended March, 1937, exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom registered as consigned to the Soviet Union were valued at£2,415,000 as compared with£2,487,000 for the nine months ended March, 1936.

Sir A. Knox: Are we to understand from the reply that there has been practically no result from the£10,000,000 guarantee which was announced last July?

Mr. Stanley: Not necessarily. The effect of that on exports would not be apparent.

Sir A. Knox: Up to date has there been any result from it?

Mr. Stanley: This is a credit which is used in the ordinary way of trade.

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to renew the£10,000,000 financial credit agreement of July, 1936, between the Export Credits Department and the Russian Soviet trade representative which terminates on 30th September next; and whether, owing to the recent changed conditions in Soviet trade, negotiations will be renewed prior to the termination of the said agreement with reference to the settlement of private debts?

Mr. Stanley: The Agreement referred to by my hon. Friend provides facilities for the purchase by the Soviet Government of goods from United Kingdom manufacturers up to a limit of£10,000,000 on condition that the orders are placed by 30th September, 1937. The question of entering into another agreement of this nature is not at present under consideration by His Majesty's Government, nor has any such proposal so far been made by either party to the present Agreement. As regards the latter part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply given to my hon. Friend yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Sir W. Davison: What is the object of this semi-permanent temporary agreement when the Russian Government would be glad to have something in the nature of a permanent agreement, and that in order to get that permanent agreement for the purchase of British goods would be prepared to consider a scaled down figure for these private debts? Will the right hon Gentleman undertake to start negotiations with the Russian Government to see if that is not so?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be very glad to get information from the hon. Member as to the intentions of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that up to now it is the heavy industries which have bene-

Steam and motor ships of 100 tons gross and over shown in the returns of the Registrar-General of Shipping as having been built in Germany and registered in the United Kingdom, since March, 1935.


Month when registered.
Vessel.
When built.
Gross tonnage.
Owners in whose name registered.


1935






March
…
M.V. "Alexia"
1935
8,016
Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co., Ltd., London.


July
…
S.S. "Else Rykens" (fishing vessel).
1935
266
Aberdeen Steam Trawling &amp; Fishing Co., Ltd. Aberdeen.


July
…
S.S. "Paul Rykens" (fishing vessel).
1935
266


August
…
S.S. "Neil Mackay" (fishing vessel).
1935
266


August
…
S.S. "Peter Hendriks" (fishing vessel).
1935
266


August
…
M.V. "Eketian"
1935
1,005
United Africa Co., Ltd., London.


September
…
S.S. "Andino"
1935
4,569
Lago Shipping Co., Ltd., London.

fited? Will he use his influence so that light industries may benefit in a similar way?

Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that no British workman has benefited at all from the agreement?

Mr. Stanley: That is quite wrong. Something like£5,000,000 worth of orders has already been placed.

GERMAN-BUILT SHIPS (UNITED KINGDOM REGISTRATION).

Mr. Kelly: asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of British firms who, in the last two years, ordered ships to be constructed in Germany?

Mr. Stanley: There are no official statistics of orders placed by British firms for the construction of ships in Germany, but I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing the registered owners of the steam and motor ships of 100 tons gross and over recently built in Germany which are shown in the returns of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having been registered in the United Kingdom since March, 1935.

Mr. Kelly: May I ask to what date the figures go? Do they include the construction for the last two years?

Mr. Stanley: We have no figures of construction. All we can give are those of vessels which have been registered.

Following is the table:

Month when registered
Vessel.
When built.
Gross tonnage.
Owners in whose name registered.


1936.







February
…
S.S. "Ethiopian"
1936
5,424
United Africa Co., Ltd., London.


February
…
S.S. "Nigerian"
1936
5,423


March
…
S.S. "Guinean"
1936
5,205


April
…
S.S. "Leonian"
1936
5,424


April
…
S.S. "Liberian"
1936
5,205


April
…
M.V. "Narragansett
1936
10,389
British Mexican Petroleum Co., Ltd., London.


April
…
M.V. "Seminole"
1936
10,389


July
…
S.S. "Northern Gem" (fishing vessel).
1936
655
Mac Line, Ltd., London.


July
…
S.S. "Northern Pride" (fishing vessel).
1936
655


August
…
S.S. "Terje 1"
Whalers.
1936
335
United Whalers, Ltd., London.


August
…
S.S. "Terje 2"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 3"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 4"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 5"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 6"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 7"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 8"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje 9"
1936
335


August
…
S.S. "Terje Viken"
1936
20,638


September
…
S.S. "Northern Wave" (fishing vessel).
1936
655
Mac Line, Ltd., London.


September
…
S.S. "Northern Dawn" (fishing vessel).
1936
655


September
…
M.V. "Congonian"
1936
4,929
United Africa Co., Ltd., London.


November
…
S.S. "Northern Foam"
(fishing vessels).
1936
655
Mac Line, Ltd., London.


November
…
S.S. "Northern Rover"
1936
655


November
…
S.S. "Northern Sky"
1936
655


November
…
S.S. "Northern Spray"
1936
655


November
…
S.S. "Northern Sun"
1936
655


November
…
M.V. "Taron"
1936
8,054
Sarawak Oilfields, Ltd., Sarawak.


November
…
M.V. "Tornus"
1936
8,054


November
…
S.S. "Northern Chief" (fishing vessel).
1936
655
Mac Line, Ltd., London.


December
…
S.S. "Northern Duke" (fishing vessel).
1936
655


December
…
M.V. "Cornelia S."
1936
977
Franto Petroleum and Shipping Co., Ltd., London.


December
…
S.S. "Northern Gift" (fishing vessel).
1936
655
Mac Line, Ltd., London.


December
…
S.S. "Northern Reward" (fishing vessel).
1936
655


1937.






January
…
S.S. "Northern Princess" (fishing vessel).
1936
655


January
…
S.S. "Northern Isles" (fishing vessel).
1936
655


April
…
M.V. "Henry Dundas"
1937
10,448
Oriental Tankers, Ltd., Hong Kong.

PRICE MOVEMENTS.

Mr. Leach: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed that at the end of 1936 importers were buying at prices less than 1914; that wholesale prices in this country were 39 per cent. higher than 1914 and the cost of living 52 per cent. higher; what is the explanation of these discrepancies; and

whether any steps can be taken to reduce or abolish them?

Mr. Stanley: All imported goods are not included in the movements in price recorded by any wholesale prices index number, and the cost of living index number is even more limited in scope as regards the commodities included. Moreover, both these index numbers include


home-produced as well as imported goods, and the cost of living index number also includes rent. In the circumstances no correspondence can be expected between the three movements in prices to which the hon. Member refers. He will remember in this connection the more detailed explanation given to him by my predecessor in July last.

Mr. Leach: Does not the President agree that there is a relationship between these three sets of figures; and is not one of the chief reasons for the discrepancies the tariff policy of the Government, which the right hon. Gentleman has himself condemned?

Mr. Stanley: It is not one of the reasons, I have not condemned it, and, as I have said, there is no exact relationship between these three price movements.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council have had under consideration the increase in the cost of commodities, particularly as regards foodstuffs; and whether any action is proposed?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot usefully add to the answer given by my predecessor to the question which the hon. Member put on the same subject on 13th April.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what is the use of the Food Council?

Mr. Stanley: The Food Council produces very valuable reports, and when appropriate their report is acted upon by the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the Minister is satisfied with the Food Council and its investigations?

Mr. Stanley: Of course we all recognise that many individuals and bodies require stimulating in some way.

Captain Harold Balfour: Can the President confirm the fact that while the level of wages is rising, the average level of food prices for 1937 is still ten points below that of 1930 when the hon. Member and his party were in office?

Mr. Paling: Is it not true that the rise in the cost of living has wiped out any advance in wages.

FOODSTUFFS (IMPORTS).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of foodstuffs of all categories imported into the United Kingdom from the Dominions and foreign countries, respectively, in the first five months of this year?

Mr. Stanley: During the five months ended May, 1937, the value of food and drink (including living animals for food and feeding stuffs for animals) imported into the United Kingdom from British countries amounted to£79,800,000, and from foreign countries to£79,727,000.

NATIONAL SHIPBUILDERS SECURITY, LIMITED.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage of shipping and the authoritative statements recently made that coal orders available abroad cannot be filled because of the shortage of tonnage, he will cause inquiry to be made into the activities of National Shipbuilders Security, Limited, with a view to the removal of the ban they have placed on certain yards?

Mr. Stanley: The question of the sufficiency of shipbuilding capacity is kept under constant review and is discussed from time to time with National Shipbuilders Security, Limited. I understand that at present, in spite of the improved conditions, the work obtainable is sufficient to occupy only 65 per cent. of the available capacity.

Miss Wilkinson: Is that not partly due to the fact that certain smaller and inefficient yards are out of action? Is it not a fact that the more efficient and larger yards are already absolutely full, and cannot take any more?

Mr. Stanley: We are watching the position closely, but I think it is a fact that there is still available capacity.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that this index figure is rising, surely we ought now to be taking some regard to the future with a view to removing the ban?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad to say that the figures are rising. The last time this question was asked, the figure was 55 per cent. instead of 65 per cent. now. We are keeping an eye upon the position.

Miss Wilkinson: May I ask when the question was asked?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot remember, but it was quite recently.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that some of the yards closed down were big yards like Beardmore, and that they were closed down owing to voluntary co-operation among the shipowners themselves? Would it not be a very improper thing to interfere with these contracts freely arrived at among the shipowners themselves?

ITALY.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much is still owing by Italy to United Kingdom creditors under the Clearing Agreement concluded with the Italian Government in November last?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that precise information is not available, since the Italian exchange authorities do not normally furnish particulars of the debts until they advise the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office that payment should be made to the creditors concerned.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Clearing Agreement there are complaints from English creditors that the Italian debtors are not paying the right amounts in Italian currency to those creditors in England?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I answered a question by the hon. Member on that point a few days ago. The hon. Member refers to the extra payment that ought to be made owing to the devaluation of the lire, and, as I explained then, the remedy of the English creditor is with the Italian court.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to negotiate a new trade agreement with Italy to replace the Anglo-Italian Commercial Agreement which shortly expires?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. Unless denounced by either of the contracting Governments, the Anglo-Italian Commercial Agreement of 6th November, 1936, will automatically continue in force from quarter to quarter.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say offhand whether there is a favourable balance of trade for this country under that commercial agreement?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot say that offhand, but the export of United Kingdom goods to Italy has risen from£34,000 in October to£372,000 in April of this year.

Mr. Lawson: If there were any denunciation, would the right hon. Gentleman see that the interests of the coal trade were properly safeguarded?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly I would, but, as I said, there is no question of a denunciation.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade details of the imports and exports of iron and steel products for the four months ending 30th April, 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will find the desired information on pages 67 to 70 and 143 to 150 of the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for April, 1937.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties of Ductile Steels, Limited, Willenhall, in obtaining steel billets and slabs for re-rolling; that a productive capacity of 600 tons per week is completely at a standstill and that substantial unemployment has resulted; and whether he will endeavour to arrange that such steel as is available from home or foreign sources shall be fairly distributed on a proportional basis to users?

Mr. Stanley: I was not aware of the recent difficulties of this particular company, but I have made inquiries and understand that its production this year has been at a higher rate than last year and that it is a member of the Re-rollers' Association, which has an understanding with the steelmakers regarding the distribution of available supplies of billets. Every effort is being made to meet the great increase in demand for steel, and I have no reason to think that this company is not obtaining a fair share of the available supplies.

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this firm is well satisfied with the results of the action recently taken to help it in the matter?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he


can give any indication as to when the report of the steel inquiry may be expected?

Mr. Stanley: This report reached me last night, and I am arranging to publish it as soon as possible.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of any prosecutions that have taken place during the previous three years under Part III of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and the number of meetings that have been held by the Advisory Committee appointed under that Act during the 12 months ending at the last convenient date?

Mr. Stanley: During the three years ended 31st December, 1936, proceedings were instituted in 61 cases for infringements of Part III of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927. Thirty-six of these cases were in respect of failures by exhibitors to furnish their returns, four for exhibiting without a licence and 21 for defaults in exhibitors' quota. During the 12 months ended 31st May, 1937, five meetings of the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee were held.

Mr. Day: How many exemption certificates were issued during that period?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the Government's decision upon the comments made to him on 11th June by the interests concerned in the cinematograph film trade of Great Britain upon the Government's suggested amendments to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and will he make a statement of the Government's proposals and when the draft Bill will be introduced?

Mr. Stanley: I hope that in the course of the next few days the observations of the various sections of the film trade on the suggestions which I put before them on 11th June will have reached me. When these have been considered, the Government will be in a position to reach a decision.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite date when this Bill will be introduced? Will it be before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir; there is no chance of it being introduced before the Summer Recess.

IRON ORE, SPAIN.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the diversion of British mineral supplies to Germany and Italy in territory controlled by General Franco, he will take steps to see that British iron-ore interests in the neighbourhood of Bilbao do not, in the event of General Franco capturing that city, suffer similar coercion?

Mr. Stanley: His Majesty's Government have received informal assurances from General Franco's administration regarding the supply of iron ore to the United Kingdom from territories under his control.

Sir P. Harris: Is there any truth in the allegation that up to the present there has been deliberate diversion of ores, which normally come to this country, to Germany and Italy? Has the right hon. Gentleman any information on that matter?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will realise that the question refers to the iron ore at Bilbao. Therefore, it has not been within the power of General Franco to divert any of it.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Has the right hon. Gentleman the slightest fear that General Franco will not protect British interests?

Mr. McGovern: In view of past events, has the right hon. Gentleman any faith in General Franco?

AIRCRAFT ENGINES (EXPORT).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many Rolls Royce and how many other aero-engines were the subject of export licences in the past financial year; if not subject to export licences how many were, in fact, exported; and whether he will state, in either case, the countries of first destination?

Mr. Stanley: No specific export licences were issued in respect of aircraft engines during the financial year ended 31st March, 1937. The aircraft engines exported during this period under the open general licence of the Board of Trade


numbered 666. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving particulars of the countries of consignment. Separate particulars of engines of particular makes cannot be given.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is there any safeguard against the reconsignment of these aero engines to countries other than the country of first destination?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot answer that off-hand. As the hon. Member knows, as a consequence of the Royal Commission of the Private Manufacture of Arms, the system is to be altered in some respects, and in future military aircraft will not be exported under a general licence, but under a particular one.

Following is the statement:
TABLE showing the number of aeroplane engines exported from the United Kingdom, as registered during the 12 months ended March, 1937, distinguishing the principal countries to which these exports were consigned.

Countries to which consigned.
Number.


Union of South Africa (excluding South-West Africa Territory)
79


British India
20


Hong Kong
12


Australia
40


Finland
29


Estonia
10


Latvia
14


Lithuania
17


Poland (including Dantzig)
113


Germany
9


Netherlands
41


Belgium
48


France
15


Portugal
10


Yugoslavia
58


Greece
12


Egypt
18


China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao, Manchuria and leased territories)
9


Japan (including Formosa)
33


Other countries
79


Total exports (United Kingdom manufacture)
666

INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

Mr. Leach: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the emphatic desire expressed by the representatives of every part of the British Commonwealth represented at the Imperial Conference, that all steps should be taken to secure the stimulation of international trade, what steps are being taken to this end?

Mr. Stanley: As has frequently been stated in this House, His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the stimulation of international trade. With this object, they propose to continue their policy of concluding, in appropriate cases, bilateral trade agreements of which the benefits are generalised under the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. Moreover, as the House is aware, in conjunction with the French Government they have invited M. van Zeeland, the Prime Minister of Belgium, to undertake informal explorations as to the possibility of some wider action; these explorations are now proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (SEAMEN'S SHORE PASSES).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. P. Byrne, a seaman on the steamship "Palmella," was fined by the authorities at Oporto, on 29th May, the sum of 670 escudos,£6 3s., for being ashore without a pass; whether there is any recognised scale of fines operated by the Portuguese authorities; and, if so, whether, in view of the hardship caused to seamen, representations will be made to owners of ships visiting Portuguese ports that notices should be prominently displayed warning seamen of the danger of leaving their passes behind when they go ashore?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the facts mentioned in the first part of this question. I understand that the master of the "Palmella" had warned Mr. Byrne, and the other members of his crew, of the consequences of going ashore without a pass. With regard to the last part of the question, I am calling the attention of the Shipping Federation to this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANKRUPTCIES.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcies occurred during the year 1936 and the total amount of liabilities?

Mr. Stanley: The total number of receiving orders and administration orders for England and Wales for the year 1936 was 3,250, and the total liabilities as estimated by debtors (excluding secured claims) were£4,793,013.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1930, when the ginger policy of the hon. Member and his party was in full operation, the number of persons adjudicated bankrupt was 4,000, and the total liabilities£9,500,000?

Mr. Thorne: Why do you not go back to Adam?

Oral Answers to Questions — JARROW (NEW COMPANY).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the great anxiety felt in the town, he can now give any report as to the progress of work schemes for Jarrow?

Mr. Stanley: I am happy to say that arrangements have been concluded, subject to the settlement of certain details, for the formation of a new company to build and operate a plant for the manufacture and rolling of steel at Jarrow. The conclusion of this scheme has been made possible by the agreement of the Government to provide loan money from the fund created under Section 6 of the Special Areas {Amendment) Act, 1937, and by the participation of the Bankers' Industrial Development Company, the Nuffield Trustees and the Consett Iron Company. The Commissioner for the Special Areas has agreed to take steps to secure a site and to provide financial assistance under Section 3 of the Act. It is proposed that the capital of the company should be£1,000,000, and that the chairman should be Mr. C. Bruce Gardner.

Miss Wilkinson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which will give great satisfaction and hope to our very distressed town, may I ask whether the site to which he alluded in his reply is the Palmer's Yard site?

Mr. Stanley: I would prefer not to answer any further questions on details at the moment. If I may, I will let the hon. Lady know when she may put down a further question on that or on a similar subject.

Mr. Macquisten: May we trust that the Government are not charging 5 per cent., as they are charging to the farmers?

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the number of men who will be employed?

Mr. Stanley: It is very difficult to estimate the number that will eventually be employed, but certainly several hundreds.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CLOTHING ALLOWANCE, GUARDSMEN.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount of the clothing allowances issued to guardsmen; and what kit they are expected to provide and maintain out of this amount?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The clothing allowance received by a guardsman at home is 4s. 3d. a week. He is supplied free with an initial issue of necessaries and clothing, and the allowance is provided to cover their maintenance. As the list of necessaries and clothing is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:


Personal Clothing.



Boots, ankle (pairs)
2


Cap, forage
1


Cap, S.D. soft
1


Jacket, S.D.
2


Overalls (suits)
2


Puttees (pairs)
2


Shoes, canvas (pair)
1


Trousers, S.D. (pairs)
2


Trousers, tweed (pair)
1


Tunic
1


Necessaries.



Badge, cap
1


Bag kit
1


Braces (pairs)
1


Brush, shoe, blacking
1


Brush, button, brass
1


Brush, clothes
1


Brush, hair
1


Brush, polishing
1


Brush, shaving
1


Brush, tooth
1


Brass, cleaning
1


Buttons, Royal Arms and rings sets (for overalls)
1


Cap, comforter
1


Comb, hair
1


Drawers, cellular, short (pairs)
2


Drawers, woollen (pairs)
2


Fork
1


Gloves, knitted (pair)
1


Holdall
1


Housewife
1


Jersey, pullover
1


Knife, table
1


Laces, leather (spare) (pair)
1


Razor (and blade)
1


Shirts, angola, drab
3


Socks, worsted (pairs)
3


Spoon
1


Titles (sets)
2


Towels, hand
2


Sponge
1

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the reasonable complaints that have been made against the cost incurred by the guardsmen in providing new tunics at a cost of£3 14s. each in connection with their duties on the Coronation route, and the fact that they were seriously damaged due to the heavy rains, he will consider granting to the men this amount of£3 14s. each as a special Coronation concession?

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that, in those cases where a guardsman provided himself with a new tunic out of his clothing allowance and had that tunic ruined on the day of the Coronation, the cost of replacing that tunic by another new one shall be borne by public funds if the clothing allowance is insufficient to provide such replacement?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend will consider any facts which may be brought to his notice.

Mr. Lawson: Why cannot the War Office do the decent thing about this matter, seeing that these men have suffered in that they have had to pay for new uniforms specially for the Coronation? Why cannot they be recouped in these special circumstances?

Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Member has no right to assume that the War Office is not going to do the decent thing. There is no intention that any men should suffer as a result of the unusual circumstances of the Coronation.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not a fact that the only answer the House has had up to the present is that certain regulations are laid down and that they operate? How can the regulations apply to the special circumstances of the Coronation?

Sir V. Warrender: As I said, the regulations will not be used in any harsh manner.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, guardsmen whose uniforms were damaged are to be recouped for the loss they sustained?

Sir V. Warrender: The position is that at the moment we do not yet know fully what the claims are going to be. As I said, there is no intention that men who

suffered losses as the result of the unusual circumstances of Coronation day shall suffer.

Mr. Macquisten: Does this not show the desirability of clothing all soldiers in the kilt, which never suffers from the rain?

TIENTSIN.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is no officers' mess at Tientsin and that the officers use a private house for this purpose one and a-half miles from barracks; and whether, in view of the undesirability of having officers so far from barracks in a country such as China and the discomfort to the officers themselves, he will authorise the building of a mess in barracks?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend cannot accept the suggestions made in the second part of the question.

Captain Macnamara: Is it not a fact that the officers' mess is a mile and a half from the barracks?

Sir V. Warrender: I understand that the accommodation is very comfortable, and that it is about a mile away.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that there is constant complaint in Tientsin at the lack of military equipment there and that, since last October, there have only been, on the average, two groundsheets between 120 men; and whether steps will be taken to provide sufficient equipment;
(2) whether he is aware that there is an insufficient reserve of equipment in Tientsin and that if anything has to be replaced it has to be sent from Didcot, which takes about six months; and whether steps will be taken to provide adequate reserves of equipment?

Sir V. Warrender: I am not aware of any shortage of equipment at Tientsin, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend will let we know what grounds he has for suggesting that such a shortage exists, I will look into the matter.

Captain Macnamara: Is it not a fact that the statement has been made that there is a considerable shortage of equipment, and as I cannot possibly go to see for myself, will my hon. Friend have a look into the circumstances to find out whether it is true or not?

EDUCATIONAL TEST, PORTSMOUTH.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a report on the recent happenings at Portsmouth where a considerable number of soldiers were threatened with stoppage of leave and loss of other privileges for failure to pass educational tests?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, I have caused inquiry to be made into this matter. It is not the case, as suggested by the hon. Member in his question of 8th June, that any deprivation of leave has actually occurred or that withdrawal of permanent passes or restriction of the privilege of wearing plain clothes was contemplated. No complaints have been made by the men concerned, nor has any discontent been apparent at the efforts of the commanding officer to improve the educational standard of his unit.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that a threat of this kind was made?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think there was a threat but the commanding officer, in the interests of the men themselves, was anxious that as many as possible should pass this educational test. If they passed it they got increased efficiency pay.

Mr. Gallacher: But is it not the case that the commanding officer gave the men to understand that these privileges would be taken away from those who did not pass the test?

Mr. Macquisten: Would the hon. Gentleman note that the Communist party is opposed to education?

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will amend the Army regulation which forbids a soldier to marry under the age of 26 years or, alternatively, produce Army regulations which provide marriage and family allowances for soldiers who are already married or who marry before 26 years of age, the same to be applicable to all new enlistments in His Majesty's Forces?

Sir V. Warrender: There is no Army regulation which forbids a soldier to marry before he reaches the age of 26, but he is made aware that, if he does so, he will not be entitled to marriage allowance. This qualifying age was fixed after careful consideration and my right lion. Friend sees no reason to change it.

Mr. Dunn: In view of the fact that representations have been made to the Department by the Ministry of Health and, as there is considerable feeling in the country on this matter, will the Department take steps either to amend the regulation or to abolish it?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think I can add anything to the reply I have already given.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wives of many of these men are in receipt of public assistance?

Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the changed circumstances since this decision was made; and in view of the fact that we are living under changed conditions, will he not agree to reconsider the matter?

Sir V. Warrender: I will represent the views of hon. Members to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. Gentleman note that both sailors and soldiers undergo a medical examination which other people do not undergo?

MATERIALS (COST).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish a schedule showing recent variations in the cost of the main classes of materials required by the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: As the answer includes a table of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The percentage variations, since October, 1936, in the cost of the main classes of materials used by the War Office are as follows, but it must not be assumed that current market prices at any particular time have any necessary relation to the prices paid.

Per cent. Increase.


Zinc
…
50


Copper
…
38


Lead
…
22


Mild Steel
…
20 to 30


Textiles and leather goods
…
5 to 25


Timber
…
10 to 30


Coal
…
6 to 20*


Coke
…
7 to 27*


Building materials
…
5 to 20


* Since July, 1936.

FIRING RRACTICE, ANGUS.

Captain Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange to discontinue the artillery and rifle practice at the Barry and Buddon camps, in Angus, on Sundays?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend has received no complaint in this matter. but is prepared to consider representations.

CANTEENS (DISCOUNTS).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the discount allowed to regimental units by the Navy, Army, and Air Force canteens is still being expended on sports gear and cleaning materials?

Sir V. Warrender: Regulations provide that rebates received by commanding officers may be expended on improving the amenities of institutes or on any subject which collectively benefits the soldier, such as sports gear. I am not aware of any case where such discounts have been used for the purchase of materials for cleaning personal or unit equipment.

Mr. White: Does the Territorial Army participate in this arrangement, and, further, will the hon. Gentleman invite the Secretary of State to review this policy in order to see whether it would not be in the interests of the soldier and of the Service that this money should be paid back into the food account?

Sir V. Warrender: I would like to have notice of the first part of the question. I am prepared to consider the second part.

KIT (INDIA).

Mr. White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as a result of the recently announced cessation of stoppages of payment for kit, soldiers are now receiving full pay on and from their arrival in India?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley): I have been asked to reply. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to additional articles of tropical clothing required by the soldier who is sent overseas. The recent decision was that, as from next trooping season, a free issue will be made of the third khaki drill suit, and helmet, which hitherto the soldier has paid for out of his clothing allowance. This concession

applies to soldiers going to India. There are certain other small items, required by the soldier to complete his kit to the Indian scale, which at present he pays for by instalments from his clothing allowance. The question whether he should also be relieved of the cost of these items is under consideration.

Mr. White: Is the Noble Lord aware of the great dissatisfaction which exists on the part of men arriving in India who have very little pay to draw for the first six months and who are often reduced to a condition of very serious hardship; and would he look further into the matter?

Lord Stanley: I think in many cases the hardship has been abolished altogether, and in other cases it is under consideration.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Noble Lord aware that this change would be much appreciated by the soldiers; and will he recommend that free judgment should be exercised by the War Office in these matters as in the other matter of the Coronation parade?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities in Scotland to the effect that, owing to the rise in the price of materials for house-building, it is now necessary, if houses are to be produced at rents within the competence of the working classes, that the present subsidy of£6 15s. should be cancelled and the previous subsidy of k9 restored; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I have received representations from the Convention of Royal Burghs and from a number of individual local authorities that the present subsidy of i6 15s. available under the Act of 1935 should be increased and some of these representations suggested that the increased figure should be With regard to the latter part of the question, I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the statement which I made on 23rd March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers).

Mr. Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he was warned in advance of the probable consequences of the Government's expenditure on the rearmament programme in regard to house-building; and if he cannot increase the subsidy, can be take any steps to prevent a continuous rise in the price of building materials?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, we are taking all the steps we can.

Mr. Johnston: What steps?

Mr. Elliot: We are taking steps, for instance, to secure a larger supply of bricks—one of the main housing materials.

Mr. Watson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the action of Lochgelly Town Council in refusing to accept any of the tenders for 8o houses, urgently needed to relieve overcrowding in the burgh, on the ground that the building costs are so high that the tenants would be unable to pay the rents that would be required after allowing for the Government subsidy and the local authority's contribution; and whether he proposes to increase the subsidy of k6 15s. to enable the town council to proceed with this scheme?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement regarding housing subsidies which I made on 23rd March in reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), and to which I am not in a position at present to add.

Mr. Watson: What progress does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make with his housing scheme if 4-apartment or 5-apartment houses are to be rented at n, a year?

Mr. Elliot: That is part of the general question which will, no doubt, arise in the Estimates Debate this week.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a final or interim statement regarding the progress made towards expediting the provision of housing accommodation in Scotland, in the light of his consultations with the local authorities and the representatives of employes and employers in the building industry?

Mr. Elliot: A further meeting with representatives of employers and operatives was held on the 19th instant. With a view to ensuring better progress, particularly on the housing schemes of local authorities, the operatives at that meeting made proposals for the working of overtime and for the adjustment, where necessary, of the apprenticeship quotas through the established machinery of the industry. In the bricklaying trade, which is the one in which shortage of labour has been most apparent, it was estimated by the operatives that these proposals, taken together, would provide increased labour equivalent to at least 500 men. In the discussion of these proposals a substantial measure of agreement with the employers was obtained, but certain details have still to be discussed. I am assured both by the employers' and the operatives' representatives that there is every prospect of a definite agreement being reached.

Mr. Mathers: Realising the difficulty of giving full details in reply to a question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be prepared to amplify this statement when his Vote is under discussion on Thursday?

Mr. Elliot: That depends to some extent whether progress has been made in settling the outstanding details. If further progress has not been made it will be difficult to amplify them.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this agreement will cover rural as well as urban districts, where up to now the main force of housing has been concentrated?

Mr. Elliot: I understand that it will be a general agreement covering all districts.

DEER.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make as to the projected action by the Government to meet the position caused by the depredations of deer, as indicated in the representations made to him by the members of the subcommittee of the National Farmers' Union for Scotland and Blackface Sheep Breeders Association?

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the memorial from the National Farmers' Union for Scotland and Black-face Sheep Breeders' Association; whether


he accepts the statements contained therein relating to the increasing number of red deer and the extending damage to grazing and arable land caused by them; and, if so, what action does he propose taking to deal with this growing danger to Scottish farming?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the statement, to which his attention has been drawn, circulated by Scottish agriculturists relating to the depopulation of the Highlands of Scotland and the damage to agricultural interests by herds of red deer outwith the boundaries of recognised deer forests; and whether any legislative action is intended by the Government?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer to the reply given on 17th June, to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), copies of which I am sending to the hon. Members.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who are competent to judge reckon that something like 6,000,000 acres of Scottish soil are now covered by deer; and in spite of their picturesque appearance does he not recognise them as vermin, and think they should be dealt with as such?

Mr. Elliot: Until I have considered the petition I am not in a position to make a statement upon it.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present number and acreage of recognised deer forests in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: The number of deer forests in Scotland, as returned to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on 4th June, 1936, is 194, and their total area is 3,354,194 acres.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that outside the area which is looked upon as being deer forest the deer roam over a total of something like 6,000,000 acres, and does he realise the importance of dealing with this menace?

Mr. Elliot: I have already answered that point in reply to an earlier question.

AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in further-

ance of the Government's new agricultural proposals, it is intended to compile a list of approved suppliers of lime and basic slag for fertilising purposes; and, if so, will he keep in view the services and facilities of such firms in Greenock with a view to the inclusion of these firms in such a list?

Mr. Elliot: As the hon. and learned Member will be aware, it is the intention of the Government to bring before Parliament immediately the legislation that will be necessary to give effect to the proposals communicated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 27th May last. The legislation will contemplate the preparation of a list of approved suppliers of lime and basic slag, and it is the present intention to invite, at the appropriate stage, all producers and merchants who are already engaged in supplying these materials to farmers to apply for provisional approval under the Scheme.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that applies to the second part of the question?

AGRICULTURE (VETERINARY SERVICE).

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the proposals of the Government, in their application to Scotland, for the eradication of tuberculosis and other diseases from the dairy herds of Scotland;
(2) whether he will publish as a White Paper the Government's draft proposals, submitted to Scottish local authorities, for transfer of veterinary services from local authorities in Scotland to a State service?

Mr. Elliot: The Government's proposals as a whole are now explained in the Memorandum on the Financial Resolution issued to-day to which I would refer the hon. Member. The proposals discussed with Scottish local authorities are incorporated therein.

Mr. Westwood: Am I to understand that the central body to deal with veterinary services will be located in Edinburgh, and not in London?

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member will find full information in the Financial Resolution and in the Memorandum attached.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the Scottish Members on this point?

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland drawing old age pensions under various Acts were also in receipt of poor relief on 1st January last; and of those persons how many were single persons and how many were married in households where only the wife or the husband was drawing a pension?

Mr. Elliot: The number of persons in Scotland drawing old age pensions who were also in receipt of poor relief at 15th May, 1936, the latest date for which figures are available was 37,020. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of persons in Glasgow drawing old age pensions and also having an additional allowance from the public assistance department?

Mr. Elliot: The number of persons in Glasgow receiving old age pensions who were also in receipt of outdoor relief from the local authority at 15th May, 1936, the latest date for which information is at present available, was 12,816.

Mr. McGovern: Are the Government considering raising the old age pension, with the object of abolishing this taint of pauperism, which old people feel very keenly indeed?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I can make no statement about legislation.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average rent per acre of equipped holdings under 10 acres in extent constituted by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland during the last three years?

Mr. Elliot: The average rent per acre of the holdings referred to is£4 9s. 11d.

Mr. Mathers: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this represents an increase in the total rent over that paid before the farms were broken up for smallholdings?

Mr. Elliot: I could not answer that question without notice.

SPIKED RAILINGS, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of accidents in Glasgow where children have fallen on spiked railings; and whether he will introduce legislation to abolish all spiked railings on housing schemes?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Since 1922 the erection of spiked railings in or between back courts in Glasgow has been prohibited; and if a provisional order now before Parliament is confirmed, existing spiked railings in or between back courts will become illegal after the expiry of four years from the date of confirmation.

Mr. McGovern: In the event of that Provisional Order not operating, will the right hon. Member attempt to bring in some legislation to abolish this very obsolescent method of protecting private property?

Mr. Elliot: I have no reason to think that the Provisional Order will not be confirmed.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the danger to children to continue for four years when it is only a question of putting a railing on top of the spikes?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Lady should ask the Labour authorities in Glasgow, not me.

Mr. Buchanan: While appreciating the efforts made by Glasgow, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this danger is not confined to Glasgow alone, and will he not undertake to introduce legislation to abolish it in Scotland generally?

Mr. Elliot: That is another question.

Mr. McGovern: Do I take it according to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Glasgow Corporation have power now to abolish spiked railings?

Mr. Elliot: I should not like to say without notice.

Mr. McGovern: The right hon. Gentleman made the allegation.

Mr. Elliot: I made no such allegation. The Provisional Order will come into force in four years, according to the terms of the Order.

Mr. McGovern: The right hon. Gentleman said the Labour majority could do it.

Mr. Elliot: That is the date on which the Order will come into force.

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman having made a statement which certainly conveyed to the House that he was making an allegation against the Labour majority in Glasgow, now states that he is making no such allegation. I wish to call the attention of the House to that statement.

BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of boarded-out children from Glasgow who are boarded out in various part of Scotland; the number of these children in private houses and in institutions, respectively; also the names of the institutions and the number in each institution?

Mr. Elliot: The number of children boarded-out by Glasgow Corporation is 2,709. 2,628 are boarded in private houses and 81 in institutions. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the institutions and the number of children in each.

Following is the information:


Smyllum Orphanage, Lanark
25


Girls' Home, Newton Stewart
21


St. Catherine's Home, Edinburgh
13


Nazareth House, Aberdeen
16


St. Vincent's School for Blind and Deaf, Glasgow
3


St. Joseph's School, Tranent
2


Mossbank Auxiliary Home, Glasgow
1


Total
8l

HIRE-PURCHASE CHARGES.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case in which the Hackney Furnishing Company, Limited, of Mare Street, London, supplied furniture on the instalment system to a Mr. William Cherry, of Kilsyth, Stirlingshire; whether he is aware that the original value of the furniture was£27 of which Mr. Cherry has repaid

£25 4s.; that the furniture has been returned by arrestment, and that a messenger-at-arms has intimated that Mr. Cherry is still due to repay£18; and whether he can take any steps to limit the charges imposed upon poor people who are compelled to delay their furniture payments under this instalment payment system?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. J. S. Reid): My right hon. Friend finds on inquiry that the contract was a hire-purchase contract for goods valued at£27, and it was not therefore affected by the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932. The payments fell into arrears when about£18 had been paid, and an action for redelivery of the furniture and payment of the balance due was raised by the company against Mr. Cherry in April, 1936. The writ, the charge which followed, and various letters addressed to Mr. Cherry were all concealed from him by his wife, and in February, 1937, as the orders of the court had been ignored, a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Cherry was put into execution, whereupon the furniture was returned. I understand that the balance still due, inclusive of legal expenses, is about£10. The exceptional features of this case are due to the action of Mr. Cherry's wife in concealing the documents from him, and my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in the matter.

Mr. Johnston: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware, from the documents which I sent to the Lord Advocate, that the figures stated here are substantially correct, and if that be so is he satisfied that extortionate legal charges have not been imposed upon these poor people by the messenger-at-arms interested in this case?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have had the opportunity of seeing these figures. The question of accounting is a very difficult one, because there are cross-payments at short intervals; but with regard to the conduct of the messenger-at-arms, I should certainly like notice of that point.

Mr. Johnston: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that I personally sent these papers about three weeks ago to give the legal department time to see them and check the figures, and is it reasonable that they should ask for a further opportunity?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: So far as this matter is concerned I have already stated that my right hon. Friend has no power to deal with it. If there is any separate point with regard to the conduct of the messenger-at-arms, I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Logan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman see whether the original agreement has been broken if a lesser amount has been paid monthly? If that is so, has not the contract been broken, and is it not illegal to take the goods back? I want an answer to that question. I am asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to see whether the original contract has been broken, my contention being that the hire agreement has been broken, that it is invalidated, and that therefore it is an illegal arrest of goods.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That appears to raise a question of civil right in which the Lord Advocate has no power to intervene.

Mr. Gallacher: If they take the furniture back they should return the money.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC WORKS SCHEMES.

Mr. Montague: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apprehension expressed by leading economic authorities that a period of depression will succeed the present upward tendencies of trade, particularly at the end of the armament and building booms, he will appoint a Royal Commission or other suitable body to examine the facts and propose, in advance, measures of public works and possible financial adjustments that might serve to counteract the feared economic reaction?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to a question by the Junior Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Montague: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that leading Members of his own Government express extreme concern about the situation, and is he prepared to wait until the thing happens? What is he going to do in advance?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will be kind enough to look at the

answer to which I have referred, he will see that the matter is already under the consideration of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD STANDARD.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will put forward the suggestion, as a solution of the gold confusion, that the countries still on the Gold Standard should agree among themselves and afterwards with the British Empire and the United States of America, to abandon the Gold Standard and form a two-currency system, one a dollar system a and the other a sterling system, subject to an undertaking by the British Empire and the United States of America to keep a fixed ratio between sterling and the dollar, preparatory to a later return to the Gold Standard after gold has stabilised itself naturally at its market price, as a commodity, by the operation of supply and demand?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): No, Sir.

Mr. Liddall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why?

Sir J. Simon: I think that the proposal would prove to be impracticable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHORT-TERM CAPITAL, FOREIGN ACCOUNT.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the amount of short-term capital held in this country on foreign account?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on Thursday last.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the close relationship between the short-term loans in this country and the gold stock holdings, and is he aware also that the United States Government publish figures such as are asked for in this question? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman bring his Department up to date?

Sir J. Simon: I really think that if the hon. Gentleman will he good enough to look at the answer to which I have referred he will find that it deals with the matter rather fully.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Lansbury: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of old age pensioners over 70 years of age whose old age pensions are compiled and paid through the customs and excise stations within the counties of London, Essex, Surrey, and Middlesex, separately for each county or town, and the same information for the county of Durham and the cities of Newcastle, Leeds, and Sheffield, and the county of Glamorgan?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The expenditure of clerical labour in extracting these particulars from the local records would be considerable and I am afraid that for various reasons they would not be of much value when compiled. I am writing to the right hon. Gentleman to explain the difficulties involved.

Mr. Lansbury: Is it not a fact that each area keeps a record of the number of weekly payments? All I am asking for is the total number of persons to whom each area paid old age pensions.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The difficulty is that the areas covered by the Customs and Excise stations do not coincide with municipal boundaries. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider my letter and then have a word with me.

Mr. Lansbury: May I put this question? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave me the same answer on the last occasion, and I put down the question purposely so that he could get the information through the channels that are under his control which have the information, and which need not employ any clerks to provide it.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have studied the question carefully, having in mind the answer that I gave to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago. Perhaps he will read my letter and then talk to me about it.

Mr. Leonard: Could not the Minister collaborate with the Post Office and get the information with their help?

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners and how many widow pensioners are in receipt of relief from the Liverpool public assistance committee?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The numbers of old age pensioners and widow pensioners in Liverpool who were also in receipt of poor relief were 7,169 and 3,256 respectively on the 1st January last, the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether he will make representations to his colleagues in the Government with a view to obtaining an increase in these pensions, so that the need to go to the public assistance committee will be avoided?

Mr. Bernays: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have to take into account the cost of living. When the pensions were fixed, the cost of living was about 110.0 above the level before the War; it is now 52.0 higher. It is substantially less than when the Labour Government were in office.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (LOANS).

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will take steps to reduce the rate of 5 per cent. interest on the loans made by the Public Works Loan Board to farmers and others, and to assist farmers to pay their existing loans off and re-issue further loans at a lower rate of interest?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: My hon. Friend's suggestion would involve the payment by the State of a subsidy to enable the Local Loans Fund to meet its existing obligations. Farmers who borrowed under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, are allowed to repay their outstanding loans if they wish without premium, the cost being borne on the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture, but I am afraid that no extension of this exceptional arrangement could be entertained.

Mr. De la Bère: Are the Government not aware that the farmer wants as fair treatment as railways and other industries, and does my right hon. and gallant Friend think that paying 5 per cent. can be compared with the 2½per cent. paid by the railways?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: On several occasions I have had to defend the special treatment given by the Public Works Loan Board to farmers, and I do not think that that treatment can be extended.

Mr. Thutle: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that all that the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bére) is trying to do is to galvanise the Government into some form of activity?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC SERVANTS (INSURANCE).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to dignifying domestic service, the Government will take into consideration the desirability of a separate insurance scheme for domestic workers, whereby they should receive a pension at 55 instead of 65 years of age, with the alternative of a dowry on marriage?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am afraid that there are serious practical difficulties which make it impossible for the Government to adopt a special scheme of this kind for a selected class of insured persons.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the great shortage of domestic servants and of the large number of foreigners who are sent here to take this work, and would it not greatly popularise this employment if some such scheme as that suggested could be put into operation?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It would mean instituting a special scheme for one class of workers only.

Mr. Montague: Does the Minister agree that where there is no shortage there is no dignity?

Mr. Garro Jones: Could the Financial Secretary ascertain from his hon. Friend whether this question was put down in the interest of the domestic servants or in the interests of the ladies of Kensington?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

FOREIGN EXPORT SUBSIDIES.

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Secretary for Mines which countries at the present time subsidise their coal exports, and what is the approximate annual

cost to each of such action; and whether he proposes during the current year to enter into negotiations with these countries with a view to persuading them to abolish or reduce such subsidies?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): So far as I am aware, the countries which give financial assistance in one form or another to their coal exports are Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Poland, Turkey and the Union of South Africa; I have no information as to the cost of such assistance. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 15th June to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) regarding an international marketing agreement.

INTERNATIONAL COKE CONVENTION.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information as to the provisions of the agreement arrived at for the international control of the coke export trade; and whether, in view of the increased world demand for coke, he is satisfied that the agreement will not operate to the disadvantage of the users of coke in this country?

Captain Crookshank: The International Coke Convention is a business arrangement between the industrialists concerned to which the Government is not a party, but fairly full information as to its provisions has been published in the Press. I have no reason to believe that the arrangement will operate to the disadvantage of the consumers of coke in this country.

Mr. James Griffiths: Since the hon. and gallant Member is satisfied that this international agreement to regulate the sale of coke will not be to the disadvantage of this country, does he not think he ought to take steps to secure a similar agreement in respect of coal exports?

Captain Crookshank: I have made it clear that the Government were not parties to this arrangement. It is a business arrangement made by the industrialists concerned.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman is satisfied that this international coke agreement is an advantage, will he not press upon the coal interests that they should adopt similar measures?

Captain Crookshank: The reply which I gave to the previous question made a reference to that point, and perhaps the hon. Member will look it up.

PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines to what extent protective equipment in the way of helmets, gloves, etc., is in operation in the various coalfields?

Captain Crookshank: The reports for 1936 of the divisional inspectors and of the Safety in Mines Research Board, which will shortly be published, contain a good deal of information showing that satisfactory progress has been made in the various coalfields in the use of protective equipment; hard hats, for example, being bought at a rate of more than 12,000 a month. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the keenness and co-operation, shown by all sections of the industry, which have enabled a gratifying measure of progress to be attained.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MINERS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners that have been unemployed in England and Wales, county by county, for the periods of one, two, and three years, respectively.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the practice at employment exchanges that when a workman, who has had a period of employment at work other than that of his normal occupation, re-registers at the exchange, the description of his normal occupation will be changed; and how many ex-miners registering at the employment exchanges in South Wales and Monmouthshire have had the description of their normal occupation altered after a period of temporary employment at some other work?

Mr. Brown: For the purpose of the placing work of the employment exchanges, the occupational classification of a workman depends upon the nature of the work sought and the qualifications possessed by him, and would not be

changed after a spell of temporary employment outside his normal occupation. For the purpose of the monthly statistics in which the numbers of insured work-people recorded as unemployed are analysed by industries, a workman registering as unemployed is classified according to the industry in which he is employed at the annual exchange of unemployment books, or, if he is unemployed at that date, the industry in which he was last employed. This classification is revised only at the annual exchange of books in July of each year. Information is not available as to the number of ex-miners now recorded as unemployed who are included under some other industry in the statistics of unemployment.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of keeping miners under their own original registration, in view of the fact that there is a regulation which protects miners employed in the pits, and that they will lose their preference if they lose their original registration?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are difficulties in deciding what course is best for the men.

Mr. Griffiths: May I press the question? As the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are responsible for the arrangement which gives unemployed miners preference, is it not desirable that all ex-miners should keep their designation?

Mr. Brown: I was not quite sure which of the two points the hon. Gentleman had in mind, but he will find that both are covered.

EXCHANGE SITE, BARKING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether work has started upon the replacement of the temporary Employment Exchange in Barking, in view of the assurance given on 5th March, 1936, that it had been scheduled as an urgent case and would be dealt with in the near future, and the subsequent assurance that negotiations for a site were in progress?

Mr. E. Brown: Negotiations for the acquisition of a site are approaching completion. In the meantime sketch plans are being prepared with a view to expediting matters as much as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour the number of countries in which paid holidays for all workers have been established by law, and the number of countries in which certain classes of workers only have this statutory right; and will he give the names of the respective countries concerned in both cases?

Mr. E. Brown: Information on this subject is contained in a report and supplementary report on "Holidays with Pay," published by the International Labour Office in 1935, copies of which are, I understand, in the Library. Since those reports were issued, legislation has been adopted in Belgium, France, the Irish Free State, Norway and Portugal; I am having a summary made of the available information with regard to this further legislation, and will supply the hon. Member with particulars showing the classes of workers covered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT PERMITS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 1,021 foreigners admitted to the United Kingdom under permit between 1st January, 1924, and 31st May, 1937, for employment in beet-sugar factories are desirous of returning to their native countries; and whether he will facilitate such return, in view of the large number of sugar boilers unemployed in Greenock and elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension since, as stated in the reply circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th June, 1937, of the persons covered by the permits to which he refers, all but 23 have left the country. These 23 persons occupy administrative or supervisory posts in the industry.

Mr. Gibson: With regard to the 23, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these were admitted on temporary permits or on permits unlimited in time, and might facilities be given them, if they so desire, to return to their own countries?

Mr. Brown: That depends upon the circumstances of the case, and whether it is or is not to the advantage of British industry and labour to have those men in those particular posts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CELLULOID MATERIAL (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Cartland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet set up the departmental committee to inquire into the question of the danger to children and others arising from the use of celluloid toys and other articles; and, if so, what are its terms of reference?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am glad to be able to announce that Sir Vivian Henderson, formerly Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, has consented to act as chairman of this committee and my right hon. Friend hopes that the composition of the committee will soon be completed. Its terms of reference will be:
To inquire into the use of celluloid and any similar highly inflammable material in the manufacture of toys, fancy goods, articles of attire, toilet requisites and the like and to consider what steps are desirable and practicable against the danger arising to the public and especially to children from such use.

Miss Wilkinson: Will there be any women on that committee, and if so, how many?

Mr. Lloyd: That will be a matter for consideration.

Mr. Leach: Would the hon. Gentleman consent to take out the word "highly" in front of inflammable?

Mr. Lloyd: These terms of reference were very carefully considered. The difficulty from the point of view of the trade and because of the various substances that are used, is to deal with the borderline cases. I think the terms of reference will be found satisfactory.

Mr. Leach: Would not the omission of that word give the committee greater power?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (SCHOOLS, LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many schools in Liverpool now make use of radio; and how the present figure compares with that of a year ago?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): According to the register of


schools kept by the Central Council for School Broadcasting, 84 schools in Liverpool now make use of radio. I regret that it is not possible to give a figure for a year ago, but the corresponding figure at the beginning of the present school year was 44.

Mr. Kirby: How does that compare with other towns of comparable size?

Mr. Lindsay: I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHEEP-WORRYING.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the losses to farmers through the worrying of their sheep by dogs; whether he intends to take steps to mitigate the nuisance; and, if: so, on what lines?

Captain Waterhouse (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is not aware that there has been any recent increase in the number of cases of sheep-worrying by dogs. The various regulations made by county authorities to mitigate this nuisance are, it is believed, being effectively enforced but if my hon. Friend has any information indicating that it is increasing, perhaps he would be good enough to send it to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement regarding the Government's intention to facilitate the evacuation of non-combatants from the Basque Provinces?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear in answers to a Private Notice Question asked by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to continue protection by British warships to ships carrying Basque women and children to France, provided that the conditions are similar to those in which such protection was given at Bilbao, and if the French Government are willing to receive them. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is already in communication with the French Government on this point I would, however, point out that the circumstances with regard to the

evacuation from Santander are in one respect widely different from those obtaining at Bilbao. Hitherto, the protection of His Majesty's ships was made dependent on two conditions. The Basque Government was asked to give an assurance that the evacuation should be impartial, and that His Majesty's Consul at Bilbao should be kept in close touch with the arrangements, in order to ensure that this assurance was in fact carried out. These assurances the Basque Government gave. In the case of Santander, those two conditions are not fulfilled. There is no British Consul to supervise the evacuation, and the Santander authorities, who are independent of the Basque Government, have as yet given no assurances as to impartiality. His Majesty's Government are, therefore, considering the possibility of other measures with a view to supervising the character of the evacuation. In addition, they are communicating with the French Government, with a view to arranging a system of joint control at the ports of arrival in France. In the meantime, instructions are being sent to the naval authorities on the north coast of Spain to continue protection of refugee ships, British and other, proceeding to France.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and my Noble Friend the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) yesterday raised the question of a possible evacuation of Basque women and children through France to Barcelona and Valencia. His Majesty's Government have communicated with the French Government with a view to obtaining their views on this proposal. If the reply of the French Government is favourable, and if the refugees themselves wish to go, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give the protection of His Majesty's Navy for the purposes of such a scheme.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the present position of the Non-Intervention Agreement?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The House will have seen from the communique issued at the close of yesterday's meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee that Lord Plymouth, on the instructions of His


Majesty's Government, made a statement on the subject of the present position of the Non-Intervention Agreement. He pointed out that His Majesty's Government were most dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, which, in their view, could not be allowed to continue if the existence of the Non-Intervention Committee were to be justified.
In the view of His Majesty's Government. the principal cause of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs is the presence of non-Spanish nationals in Spain. As the House is aware, the Committee have before them a report which provides a plan for the withdrawal of these foreigners. But inevitably some time must elapse before such a plan can be put into effect. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, offered to place their services at the disposal of the Committee in order to facilitate and to hasten the first withdrawals of foreign combatants, which they desire should take place without further delay. I am not able at present to give further details of these proposals, which are under consideration by the Governments parties to the Agreement. I can, however, explain that the intention of His Majesty's Government in putting them forward is that it should not be necessary to wait for the complete plan to be put into effect before making a start with the withdrawal of foreigners from Spain.
So far as the Four-Power discussions are concerned, two meetings were held in the course of yesterday afternoon and evening to consider the question of the incidents in which the German cruiser "Leipzig" was involved on r5th and r8th June. No definite agreement was reached. A further meeting is being held this afternoon.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the rumours that have appeared in the Press, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can state that His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of joining in joint naval demonstrations with the Germans?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to that matter. I can say definitely that His Majesty's Government have no intention of joining in naval demonstrations off Valencia.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not quite clear now that the Non-Intervention Agreement has

broken down, that there is aggression in Spain, and that the matter should now be remitted to the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: It is perfectly clear that the agreement is not working as we should wish it to work, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that this is an agreement to which every nation in Europe has put its name, and, consequently, we have gravely to consider the position which confronts us.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of the negotiations with regard to the plan for evacuating foreigners from Spain, think that there is any possibility of Italy and Germany agreeing to such a plan at an early date?

Hon. Members: Or Russia.

Mr. Bellenger: Or Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement regarding the postponement of the German Foreign Secretary's visit to this country?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin was informed on 20th June that, in view of recent attacks on the German warship "Leipzig" by Spanish submarines, it was impossible for Baron von Neurath to leave Berlin at present, and Sir Nevile Henderson was asked to express to His Majesty's Government Baron von Neurath's deep regret at being compelled temporarily to postpone his visit to London.

Mr. Attlee: Is the question of these alleged attacks on the "Leipzig" under active investigation, and by what bodies?

Mr. Eden: I think that that point will be dealt with on another question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to go with business to-night, in the event of his Motion being carried?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the Debate on the Motion with regard to Members' salaries will be finished by


about half-past seven. It is then proposed to take the Third Reading of the Factories Bill, and afterwards the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution which was considered in Committee yesterday. We should also like to obtain the Second Reading of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill and of the Post Office arid Telegraph (Money) Bill. I do not think that either of these Bills is very contentious.

Sir W. Davison: May we take it that the Prime Minister does not propose to closure the Debate on the question of Members' salaries? A number of Members on this side of the House would like to express their views on the matter, and state their reasons for feeling unable to vote for the proposal.

The Prime Minister: I hope I did not give any impression that it is intended to

closure the Debate. What I said was that I hoped it would finish at about half-past seven. I do not think that that will prevent any hon. Members from expressing their views, provided that they do not express them at unnecessary length.

Mr. Attlee: In the event of the Prime Minister's hope not being realised, and the Debate being prolonged, may we take it that the Third Reading of the Factories Bill will not be entered upon at a late hour to-night?

The Prime Minister: Not at a late hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 120.

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Sir G.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Albery, Sir Irving
Davison, Sir W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
De Chair, S. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
De la Bère, R.
Hepworth, J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Assheton, R.
Doland, G. F.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Atholl, Duchess of
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Higgs, W. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Holdsworth, H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Duggan, H. J.
Hopkinson, A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Dunglass, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Eckersley, P. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hulbert, N. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emery, J. F.
Hunter, T.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Brass, Sir W.
Everard, W. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fleming, E. L.
Kimball, L.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Furness, S. N.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)



Ganzoni, Sir J.
Leckie, J. A.


Bull, B. B.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leigh, Sir J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Levy, T.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Liddall, W. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Lindsay, K. M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grant-Ferris, R.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lloyd, G. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Loftus, P. C.


Channon, H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Colvilla, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
M'Connell, Sir J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
MaCorquodale, M. S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Guy, J. C. M.
McKie, J. H.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Critchley, A.
Harbord, A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Harris, Sir P. A.
Magnay, T.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Maitland, A.




Making, Brig.-Gen. E.
Remer, J. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Touche, G. C.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rowlands, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wakefield, W. W.


Moreing, A. C.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Morgan, R. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Sandys, E. D.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Watt, G. S. H.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Scott, Lord William
Wayland, Sir W. A


Munro, P.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wells, S. R.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Owen, Major G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wise, A. R.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spens, W. P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Wragg, H.


Ramsbotham, H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Storey, S.



Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rayner, Major R. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Waterhouse.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Conselt)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helons)


Batey, J.
John, W.
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

BILLS PRESENTED.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS AND YOUNG PERSONS) BILL,

"to amend the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, so as to make certain persons

under the age of sixteen eligible for medical benefit, to facilitate the provision of medical benefit to such persons and to other young persons, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Mr. Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel


Colville, and Mr. Bernays; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

RATING AND VALUATION BILL,

"to extend further the duration of certain temporary provisions contained in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Mr. Bernays; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

London and North Eastern Railway Bill.

Newquay and District Water Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm an agreement between the Bristol Corporation and the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company Limited for the transfer to the said Corporation of the tramways and light railway undertaking of the said Company and for the provision and joint working of stage carriages and express carriages by the said Corporation and the said Company; to confer powers upon the said Corporation in connection with the operating and abandonment of tramways and light railways and the running of stage carriages and express carriages; to empower the said Corporation to borrow money; and for other purposes." [Bristol Transport Bill [Lords.]

BRISTOL TRANSPORT BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE, ETC.) BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

4.5 P.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the rate at which salaries are payable to Members of this House should be increased to six hundred pounds a year.

Colonel Gretton: On a point of Order. If hon. Members, after hearing the Debate, desire to vote against this Motion, will they have an opportunity of doing so, whether the Motion is amended or not amended?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members cannot vote against the Motion as it is, if it is amended. If it is not amended hon. Members will be able to vote against the Motion as it is on the Paper.

The Prime Minister: In this Resolution there is no question of principle involved. The present salary as now paid to Members of the House, with the exception of those who are in receipt of salaries as Officers of this House or as Ministers or as Officers of His Majesty's Household, was fixed in August, 1911. It, therefore, has been in operation for 26 years. What we have to consider now is, not whether there should be a salary for Members of Parliament, but whether the present salary is adequate for the purpose. In the year 1920 a Select Committee of the House was set up under the Chairmanship of the late Sir Godfrey Collins to inquire into the expenses of Members, and in the course of their recommendations the Committee said:
Your Committee are agreed that if the sum of£400 per annum was necessary n 1914—and no evidence has been submitted to the contrary—such an amount is inadequate today.
All the same, that committee did not recommend any change in the amount of salary as it then stood, but they added:
Your committee were impressed by the evidence submitted and by their private information as to the difficult financial position of certain Members at the present time. They are satisfied that further consideration should be given to this matter in the near future, but in view of the present position consider it inadvisable to make any specific recommendation at this time.
It may be added that that committee did make some recommendations other than an increase in the salary, the effect of which was somewhat to relieve the position of hon. Members by helping them

with their railway fares to and from their constituencies. But as the cost of living fell considerably shortly after the time when the committee reported, and possibly also because no extra remuneration had been paid to Ministers or to judges to compensate them for the extra cost of living, the matter was allowed to drop for a very considerable time. However, in April of the present year the question as to whether the present salaries of Members of Parliament were sufficient for their purpose was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), and he asked Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, whether he was prepared to consider the question, and he made some comparisons, which, however, Mr. Baldwin did not feel were really relevant to the point. The then Prime Minister, however, stated that he was going to make a further inquiry into the subject shortly afterwards. I would like to remind hon. Members of the words which were used by the Prime Minister at that time, because they are pertinent to the present Resolution. He said:
I want either by myself, or possibly with one of my colleagues, to make my inquiries of one or two right hon. or hon. Members who can give me the information I require, and make up my mind as to whether there ought to be a change or not. I propose to do that as soon as I can. If I and whoever joins with me in these discussions are convinced that there is a real reason and case for some increase in the present amount, then I shall be prepared to recommend to my colleagues further action; if not convinced, then to drop it. But from what we have heard from making careful inquiries through the usual channels, I fancy that the general feeling of the House coincides very much with what I have indicated. I am quite convinced that if the House as a whole believe and realise that there is a necessity for such an increase, they will support me, and, after all, if anybody objects, supposing the Government should recommend some increase, it is always open to hon. Members to do as I did when the salaries were first paid, that is not to take the cheque."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th. April, 1937, cols. 749–50; Vol. 322.]
On 27th May the right hon. Gentleman made an announcement that the Government proposed to move a Resolution to the effect of that which I now move. In this inquiry which was undertaken by Mr. Baldwin he was good enough to associate myself, and as a result I had the opportunity with him of looking into the budgets of a number of hon. Members who were good enough to submit them, of course in confidence, for the information of the Government, and as they were


confidential of course it is impossible for me to disclose the figures which were revealed. But I would like to say to the House that both Mr. Baldwin and I were surprised and distressed to find, on examination of these budgets, a considerable number of cases of hon. Members not possessed of any other means than that afforded them by their salaries, who were reduced to expedients which we felt were entirely inappropriate and improper to be imposed upon a Member of this House.
We found cases where Members, with the most careful attention to all possible, and a great many undesirable, economies, nevertheless were living beyond their means and slowly wasting away the savings that they had accumulated before they entered this House. We found other cases where they were obliged to curtail or to diminish the amount of education that they were giving or hoping to give to their children. We found cases where they were actually giving themselves insufficient food in their anxiety to keep within their means, and there were quite a number of cases where Members admitted that they were unable to give that amount of time to their duties in this House which they would desire to do, and which they felt they ought to do, because they simply could not afford to spend the whole week in London, with the extra expense which that entailed upon them. This investigation convinced Mr. Baldwin and myself that the time had come when an alteration in the amount of the existing salary ought to be made.
I think there are some general considerations that might be borne in mind in considering how circumstances have changed since the salary was originally fixed at£400. In the first place, although the cost of living went down considerably in 1920, it is still 50 per cent. above what it was when the salary was fixed, but, in addition to that, there are other changes. There is the fact that the number of electors in many constituencies has enormously increased, and everyone knows that, with that increase in the electorate, there have increased also to a very considerable extent the demands upon Members by correspondence and otherwise, all of which entail extra expense. It must also be agreed that, during these 26 years while Members have been receiving

this fixed sum of£400;the volume of our Parliamentary business has also greatly increased, and that, too, must have thrown an additional burden upon those who are carrying out their duties in this House. Being convinced by the examination of these confidential figures that£400, whatever it had been originally, was no longer sufficient for its purpose in the case of Members who had no other means, the question arose as to what should be the proper amount to fix. I do not think it is possible to say that one can exactly calculate what the figure should be.
It is obvious that the circumstances are different in the case of almost every individual Member. On the one hand, one does not want to fix the salary so high that it becomes an inducement to people to enter this House for the purpose of earning more than they would earn outside and, on the other, we do not want to fix it so low that men or women who could give valuable service to the House should be prevented from doing so merely by the fact that they have not sufficient means to afford I do not think it is possible to fix any figure and say that is the exact amount that is appropriate, but the late Prime Minister and I, having given the best consideration we could to the matter, came to the conclusion that of the alternative figures that we considered,£500 and£600,£500 still would not be sufficient for a certain number of Members, and that it would be better, therefore, to adopt a figure which would settle the matter for an indefinite period rather than fix again a sum which would give rise to complaints, and a feeling that sufficient allowance had not been made for the altered circumstances. After that consideration, therefore, we resolved to recommend to our colleagues in the Ministry, and subsequently to this House, the figure of£600, and the extra cost of that increased amount will be£112,000 a year.
I do not think that I need say any more upon the substantive part of the Motion, but there are two other things on which I should like to make one or two observations. First of all, I notice on the Order Paper an Amendment the effect of which would be to postpone the operation of the increased salary until after another General Election. I perfectly understand the feelings which have prompted some of my hon. and right hon. Friends to put


their names to an Amendment of that kind, but I am bound to say that I cannot myself see why, if it is right to alter the salary from£400 to£600 because£400 is not enough, it is not right to do it now rather than wait for another two or three years. There is another consideration. Is it really advisable that an issue of this kind, so readily open to misrepresentation, so difficult to consider in a judicial atmosphere, as it ought to be considered, should be decided in the hurly-burly of a General Election. It seems to me, if hon. Members are sincerely convinced that this alteration is right—I am sure they would not vote for it unless they were because all of us have a sense of responsibility in the matter—we have better knowledge and better evidence of what is concerned in this matter than the electorate can possibly have and, after all, no one of the electors is going to feel himself any the worse off if he decides to vote this extra£112,000 a year.
The other point on which I want to say something is this. I am quite aware that a number of Members are very much concerned about cases which have come to their knowledge where a man has been a Member of this House for a number of years and, having ceased to be a Member, either through age or infirmity, or because he loses his seat, finds himself without means of employment and, therefore, without means of subsistence. I know that hon. Members think it would be a proper and a gracious thing if, on the occasion of raising the general level of salaries of this House, we were to institute at the same time some kind of pension fund to be contributed to by some compulsory deduction from the new salary from which a pension might be awarded to persons who had served a certain number of years in the House and had arrived at a certain age. The first thing I want to say about that is that, whatever its merits, it could not be carried into operation by means of a Resolution. It would require legislation. The second thing I want to say is that it is not a matter which, in my judgment, should be hastily decided. It is a matter which requires pretty careful investigation, because any scheme of pensions must be actuarially sound. It must not expose people to the belief that they are going to receive a pension some day, and then allow them to find, when the day comes, that, through some circumstances which

had not been foreseen when the scheme was initiated, no pension is forthcoming.
I should, therefore, like to suggest that, if this matter is one which hon. Members feel should be proceeded with, some inquiry should be held, as to the form of which we should be very ready to consult Members in all parts of the House with a view to getting the most effective examination possible made. If eventually some scheme was evolved from such an inquiry, I do not exclude the possibility of introducing legislation to give effect to it, but I think I ought, having said that, to put to the House one or two considerations which, in my view, ought to be borne in mind, because I am a little afraid lest hon. Members' desires should carry them perhaps further than is warranted, and that it should seem to them an easier affair than it really is to find a scheme which is actuarially sound based upon certain deductions which have been suggested. In the first place, there is really very little analogy between such a pension scheme as I believe has been suggested and an ordinary pension scheme for employés. An ordinary pension to an employé is one of the inducements offered to him to enter employment and to give continuous and whole-time service. In this case a pension based on the salary that a Member receives would not be an inducement to him to enter the House. The question whether he would be in a position to obtain a pension is quite problematical, and is not one that depends upon himself, for his constituency may not always choose to return him, and, of course, there is no contract on the one side or the other for continuity or for wholetime service.
Therefore, there really is no analogy between the two, and, if you take a common form of pension, such, for example, as is now in existence in the case of civil servants, teachers and local government officials, there you have a pension which is either one-half the existing salary plus a lump sum, or two-thirds of the existing salary without a lump sum, the two being practically equivalent to one another, for service which has been continuous for 40 years. There is clearly nothing that you can compare with that in considering the position of Members of this House and, if you are going to fix an arbitrary number of years' service in this House as a condition to be fulfilled if a Member


is to be eligible for a pension, I think you will get into difficulties at once. You will have the case of a man who was just short of the stated number of years because the Government had chosen to dissolve a few months earlier than they might otherwise have done. It does not seem as if this sort of hard cases, which I think have really given rise to this suggestion, would be met by a pension scheme of that character.
If hon. Members will cast their minds back to 1931, for example, at that time a great number of hon. Members lost their seats, and there was, as is well-known, a considerable amount of hardship among some of them, but supposing there had been then in operation a pension scheme giving a pension to a man who had been a certain number of years in the House—15 or 20 years—and had arrived at the age of 60 or 63, that would not have met the case of a great number of hon. Members who lost their seats in 1931. So it does seem to me that any scheme on the lines of the schemes in force in the Civil Service and in the local government service are really entirely inappropriate to the circumstances in which hon. Members find themselves in this House. That, of course, is not to say that it is impossible to find a scheme which would meet the hard cases, the sort of cases that hon. Members who have taken an interest in this subject have had in mind. All that I wanted to do was to make it clear that there were considerable difficulties in what seems the simplest and easiest way of introducing a scheme of this kind, and I would like to suggest that if this matter is to be proceeded with, it should be only after the most careful and thorough inquiry into the possible methods of dealing with it. I think that is 2.11 that I want to say, and I beg to move.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I find that when this subject first began to be talked about, a good many years ago, there were many Members on all sides of the House who thought it was rather a dangerous subject to touch, and in view of that fact I will begin by saying that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House support this proposal, and we accept the responsibility for fully associating ourselves with the effort to carry it through the House.

As a matter of fact, I have been watching what has been the attitude of the public since the statement on this question was first made by the late Prime Minister. There has been a good deal of time to do that, and my impression is that the public have not shown any feeling, either for the Motion or against it, but have shown on the whole that they are comparatively uninterested in the whole subject and have certainly shown no indication whatever that they grudge us the proposal which has been made.
When I was first getting interested in politics, I remember following very closely the discussions on the original Resolution granting the£400 a year early in 1911, a Resolution which I have been looking up and for which, I am glad to say, I notice that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) voted in those days. The same thing happened then. There was the same prediction that there would be a great public outcry, and with much more reason than to-day, because then it was a new proposal. There was the same kind of statements, such as the Prime Minister had made only one reference to it, and that in part of a sentence; there were the same arguments, such as that it would be carried by a sheer party vote, and the same belief that the Liberal party, in those days, would suffer heavily for their venturesome proposal, though in fact—I remember following it very closely—in a very short time everybody agreed with it, when once the Motion had been carried, and the public lost all further interest in it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has made certain calculations as to the equivalent sum to-day to£400 a year in 1911. Those are interesting and valuable, but I would like to add to what he has said about the difference in the position of Members of Parliament to-day as compared with a generation ago. The fact is that our task is very much heavier and even more serious than it was in those days and, as a result of that, involves correspondingly heavier expenses. When I was first of all interested in politics, one regarded politics as a form almost of recreation. At elections you made rollicking and knockabout speeches. Elections were a kind of rag, and the whole thing was a rather enjoyable way of passing your time. But the


whole spirit has changed. I cannot say that I find the atmosphere of constituencies and elections particularly enjoyable to-day, and the fact is that the whole thing is becoming too grim. The public are beginning to know that what the politicians do is going to decide the very lives of their children, and it is since those days, since 1911, that the whole of our social insurance, from beginning to end, has come into existence. The National Health Insurance Act, the beginning of it all, was passed at about the same time as the granting of salaries to Members of Parliament, and that has meant not only an immense increase in work, but, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, an increase in expense as well, because I do not myself see how to-day a Member of Parliament can give his attention to the wider issues which he has to discuss in this House unless he can pay for some kind of secretarial assistance to deal with the work which all this social insurance brings upon our heads.
That is the change. In those days, when it was introduced, it was stated that the£400 a year was merely an allowance, and it was assumed that Members would either have private means or that they would have the time—and this is what I wish to point out—to earn the greater part of their living outside this House. But that is no longer possible to Members whose homes and areas of influence are far away and who are now called upon to spend eight months of the year down in London. Autumn Sessions have come into existence since 1911, and that in itself makes it difficult for a Member to earn his living apart from his work here, if he has to be in London all that part of the year. The result is that this House has now, I suppose, a class of Members who constitute a new representative capacity in this House, Members without other resources; and I may say that they are on both sides of the House. I am sure that the Prime Minister's investigation showed him that, and I am sure also that those hon. Members who followed the discussions on the Factories Bill for the better part of last week will realise how great a contribution those Members have to make to the discussions of this House.
The fact is that now—I doubt whether we realise it—the House, for ordinary work, assumes, takes it for granted, that there will be a large, an immense, propor

tion of the Members who will not earn their living in any way outside this House, and if it were not for those Members to-day the work of this House could not be carried on. If that be the position, surely you are not going to say to those Members, "We will not give you enough to live in common, ordinary, decent comfort." I happened to be, a few weeks ago, on a Standing Committee upstairs, and one morning our Committee ended early, and I walked along the corridor. I found that that morning there were four Standing Committees meeting. One of them was on the Factories Bill and another was on the Livestock Industry Bill—very largely attended, indeed full. There were private Bill Committees meeting on the other side of the Lobby, and I do not know whether that particular morning there was not another Standing Committee meeting in Westminster Hall, so that in fact on that morning, walking along the corridor, I found that there were over 200 Members of Parliament whom the House took it for granted could be here from II in the morning till II at night.
That is to say, the business of this House could no longer be carried on unless between one-third and one-half of its Members were in a position to be full-time servants of this Assembly. Once you realise this change since 1911, you have to ask yourself, Is that what you are asking a Member to perform, depending upon it that he shall perform? Is it possible for such a Member to have two homes, to live in London and to meet the absolutely inevitable expenses of Members of Parliament on the present salary, unless he is going to sacrifice the very primary comforts of life? I will not point out—I do not think it is any longer necessary—that Members are sacrificing primary comforts. The investigation which the Prime Minister made, which gave him more information than is open to any other Member of the House, made that so clear that this proposal has been put forward as the result.
The Prime Minister referred to a certain suggestion which had been made, and to which I should like to devote the few remaining sentences of what I have to say. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) some time ago asked a question which contained the suggestion that there should be a deduction of£10 a year from this allowance, this


income, towards a pension fund. He will no doubt explain his financial calculations, but it is perfectly clear that that deduction alone would provide somewhere between 25 and 30 pensions of a couple of hundred pounds a year each. I doubt whether there are at any one moment as many Members as that who would be wanting the pension, so that a very short calculation shows that it is financially perfectly easy. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears), in a letter to the "Times" some little time ago, put forward another scheme for a pension, although I think he intended a rather larger pension, with a larger contribution. I would point out to the House that there might be many Members, who would resist the increased salary, who would not resist a proposal which imposed no charge whatever upon the public funds, but merely involved an arrangement among Members of the House themselves.
These proposals have been discussed by myself and my hon. Friends and we certainly would support them. Indeed, we would welcome them. I am not going to enter into the matter, and I am not saying this in a jocular fashion, but I would remind the House that ours is not an insurable occupation. I do not say that in a jocular fashion, because there are former Members of this House known to practically all here, old Members who have taken a considerable part in the work of the House, and have been on both sides of the House, who regret that it is not an insurable occupation and would be glad of unemployment benefit if they could get it to-day. If one went into it, I think that the House would be shocked if they knew what has happened to Members, either because they have grown old or have become ill, or have lost their seats, or more particularly because of those dependent upon them. The proposal put forward by the Prime Minister appears to be the right step to take. The whole matter depends upon actuarial considerations. It is not a simple matter, but if the Government would set up the appropriate committee it would give us all the facts and figures, and then the House could decide what the next step should be.
May I put to the House a reason for taking a special interest in this proposal

for a pension fund, which, I think, perhaps goes even rather deeper than at first sight might be appreciated? I agree with it because it fits in with my whole idea of what the House of Commons is. In my view this House is a corporate body with a corporate spirit of which the country may well be glad in time of common difficulty, and indeed which, I think, it did appreciate in the common difficulty of a few months ago. I believe that that is our secret. I look over Europe for the last few years and I see Parliaments established which seem to be very much the same as our own in all their features, but they have not found out our secret. And where are most of them now? These proposals to establish a pension fund appear to be one of those deeds of inspired common sense, which shows that we have not lost our political touch, and I hope that the Government, by giving us the facts and figures, will enable us to put it upon a practical foundation.

4.50 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I speak under a slight handicap this afternoon because the hon. Member of my party who was expected to speak has suddenly found himself unable to do so, and I did not happen to have been present at cur party meeting last week when this matter was discussed. I was better employed in West Cornwall perhaps. It seems to be difficult to get away from the main point which the Prime Minister made, that if this was found to be right by the House of Commons in 1911, and if the work of the House has considerably increased since then, which is true, and the cost of living has increased since then, which is also true, a higher figure is justifiable and therefore should be granted. That was the point which he made, and I agree with him, and if it is right we ought not to be afraid of doing it now. I found, when I looked back at the Debate of August, 1911, that I voted for it then, and I am about to do the same now. I also found that it was opposed with the whole weight of the Conservative party, and it is rather interesting to find what a change has taken place. It may be interesting to hon. Members if I read the reasoned Amendment which was officially moved on behalf of the Opposition in those days, and ask them how.


it is they have so definitely altered their view now? It says:
To leave out from the word 'that,' to the end, and to add the words: 'this House declines to provide money for the payment of Members of Parliament, because such payment would be an indefensible violation of the principle of gratuitous public service, would involve the taxpayers in heavy and unnecessary expense, and would encourage a demand on the part of members of local bodies to be paid for their services, and further because in the opinion of this House, there would be a peculiar impropriety in Members of Parliament voting salaries to themselves—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th August, 1911; col. 1384, Vol. 29.]
It is rather curious to find that the party which supported that Amendment then has now, I think, rightly, come to a different point of view.

An Hon. Member: Some of them.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Mr. F. E. Smith very strongly supported the original Motion.

Sir F. Acland: He did not speak on that day, but that may have been so at another stage. I looked carefully through the debate on that date, which was on ordinary party lines, and the Amendment which I have read was voted for by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Baldwin. It is an excellent thing that the view of the Government on this matter has been Liberalised, though whether it is due to the fact that the prognostications of those days have not turned out to be true, or whether it is due to certain elements which have joined the Government since then, is not for me to say. In addition to being, as I am bound to be, of the opinion that I have expressed, I believe that the idea of having an inquiry into the very difficult matter of pensions is right. It is clearly a matter which we could not decide now, and it is going to be a very difficult thing altogether, and, therefore, the suggestion of an inquiry is the correct one. With regard to the question of payment, I feel bound to say, on behalf of my party, that we take a general view in favour of it. It is a thing which all of us have had to think out rather for ourselves, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity when the further proceedings are before us of moving Amendments.
This is what sticks in my mind. None of us knows what salaries any of us

salaries, but we do not know anybody else's. In this sense it may be£300 with the deduction of the full 5s. Income Tax, or it may be£400 with no Income Tax deduction allowed because no expenses are allowed. A Member may live in London and have no secretarial expenses. He may charge a little for postages, and. in that case there would be only a few pounds allowed for expenses. The only person who knows is the very courteous and efficient assessor of Income Tax who lives over the river, and whom, perhaps, some of us have interviewed before it has. been settled what was to be allowed on account of Income Tax. It is in my mind, and I am bound to put it before the House of Commons because I take rather a serious view of it, that we should allow the£600 without any question at all, to the Members whose expenses reach that: sum, but I do not see why we should. allow it to Members whose expenses do not reach that sum. By expenses I mean the expenses of maintaining a home away from Westminster as well as the expenses. of being at Westminster.
Certain Members of the House have to maintain two establishments. They have to be here during the week, but that does not in the least relieve them of having to, keep their wives and families going in the places where they live. They cannot include it in their expenses, and if we are: allowed to return for Income Tax purposes our expenses, including the expenses of maintaining a household in so far as that would not normally be covered by other income, then, certain Members of the House will automatically get the£600. Those of us who normally maintain a household somewhere else out of other income would continue on the£400 basis. Nobody would know what anybody was getting any more than is known now, but it would be limiting the£600 to those who, have expenses, including family expenses, and who really need it. Those of us who whatever our expenses may be in London, normally run our households somewhere else out of other income, would go on as we are. That would meet the grievance where it is felt.
I intensely dislike the feeling that there should be any Members of the House who cannot afford to give themselves proper food or live in comfortable lodgings because of the expense of maintaining their-wives and families somewhere else. The


suggestion I have made would cover that position completely. I dislike going into the newspaper room, realising that quite a number of Members of the House get their meals in the tea room just because they want to spend less than they would have to spend in the dining room on a mid-day meal or an evening meal. Some of them may like it, but some of them clearly do it. because sixpences and shillings are important to them. The proper expenses of maintaining our families elsewhere should be allowed up to£600, but I do not think that a Member automatically should get the£600 whether his expenses of living away from his constituency or living in London really necessitate that sum or not. I should make it clear that I have not, owing to the circumstances I have explained, had an opportunity of talking the idea over with my party. I think that it is very necessary to meet the expenses of those who are now suffering, but I do not think that it is necessary automatically to give everybody the extra£200 a year in these difficult times. I thank the House for having listened to this suggestion, but on the whole, as between voting for or against this Resolution, I and my party are in favour of the proposal which the Prime Minister has made.

4.59 P.m.

Mr. Lambert: The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition bench fills me with admiration. He regards a General Election as a kind of rag. I have never enjoyed a General Election. [An HON. MEMBER: "You never enjoy anything!"] There is one thing I enjoy more than another, and that is knocking the Socialist party on the head. I remember the late Sir William Harcourt saying to me that there was nothing the House of Commons disliked so much as a General Election. That is perfectly true. Payment of Members was introduced in 1911 by Mr. Asquith and the Liberal Government of that time. It was introduced in order to provide direct representation in this House for the wage earners, and it has been successful. Within 13 years a Labour Government was installed, and within 18 years, in 1929, the Labour party was the strongest party in the State. It was prognosticated that as a result of the introduction of the payment of Members

the Liberal party would suffer. It has suffered. It has been broken up largely because of the payment of Members of Parliament. That is my considered opinion. I do not know whether the Conservative party is going to suffer in the same way for having proposed this increase. In 1911 there was considerable discussion as to whether the salary should be£300 or£400. It was fixed at the more generous sum. Since then railway passes have been granted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) says, quite truly, that in 1911 the Conservatives furiously opposed the scheme for payment of Members. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was accused at that time of corrupting the House of Commons. Now, apparently, the Prime Minister is following his lead. Nothing will surprise me in politics when we see the Prime Minister endorsing in this way the proposal of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I should not be surprised if the Prime Minister later on invited the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to join his Cabinet. We were told that the payment of Members would be an incentive to corruption. I never believed that allegation. This is the most wonderful assembly in the world. The very fact that we can cross-examine Ministers for an hour each day is the greatest safeguard against any corruption, and no other assembly has that safeguard.

Sir F. Acland: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he voted in favour of the£400 a year?

Mr. Lambert: I said so, and I have said that we have suffered for it as a Liberal party. I was a Member of that Government. We were told then that payment of Members would bring in representatives of the working people. I am not sure that the House of Commons has been improved. Six hundred pounds a year may attract many young men. There is a good deal of glamour and notoriety about politics, but the politician lives dangerously. It is not very difficult to get into the House of Commons on certain occasions, but it is more difficult to stay in. That is the real test. Politicians are dependent not so much upon themselves but upon their leaders. Their


leaders may take a wrong turning. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will remember 1931.

Mr. James Griffiths: What about 1918?

Mr. Lambert: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. We have heard a great deal about pensions. That is going to be a difficult scheme, I am told. I remember that in the old days political pensions were condemned by almost every party, and they have fallen into desuetude. Will the country be any the better for a score of Cabinet Ministers sitting with£5,000 a year, with a Leader of the Opposition getting£2,000, and with something like 600 Members of Parliament getting£600 a year? I notice that the£2,000 a year salary for the Leader of the Opposition has created some commotion in the placid pools over there. Perhaps we shall get more activity in the future. Even if this increase may be considered necessary, I say that it is extremely inopportune at the present time. The financial prospects of this country are distinctly alarming. I may be told that this proposition will cost only£112,000 a year, but expenditure is soaring, taxation is increasing, we have a huge debt, no sinking fund, we are borrowing£50,000,000 a year, there are no more hen-roosts to rob and many of the hens have been killed. Is this the moment, with all these financial liabilities, for us to vote an increase of our own salaries? I do not agree with it. We cannot spend ourselves into prosperity. The psychological effect upon the country may be disastrous. What about the great spending Departments? If we are to be economical in our administration, we must be economical ourselves. Look at the Civil Service. Will they be keen on economies in the future? They will say: "There is no necessity to economise; Parliament is voting increases of salaries to itself."
I entered the House in the days of Mr. Gladstone. [Laughter.] Is there anything bad in that? Is there anything to laugh a t in that? Will any hon. Members opposite be able to come down here when they have been a Member for 40 years, as I have been? My constituents have returned me, in spite of the fact that I

have been opposed. I am attempting to present a serious argument to the House, and there is no need for interruptions. I am not ashamed of my record. I entered the House of Commons under the aegis of Mr. Gladstone. He was a statesman who not only practised economy but enforced it in Government Departments. It may be said that that is a thing of the past and does not matter now, but during that period we accumulated foreign investments upon the capital of which we are living to-day. In my opinion we are going on certainly to a period of inflation. We are borrowing, increasing taxation, spending enormous sums, necessary sums so far as armaments are concerned, and on other things. Where is it going to end? I would ask lion. Members on this side of the House, who will have to meet their constituents two or three years hence at a General Election, what will be their position then? They will be asked whether they will vote for increases in the old age pension, and whether they will vote for spinsters' pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Yes," but it is the hon. Members on this side who will have to give the answer. Hon. Members opposite will be doing the attacking. What will be the reaction at meetings in the constituencies? You may say, "No," or "Yes." It is easy to promise. If you say, "No," they will immediately say: "You voted in the House of Commons to give£200 a year extra to yourselves."
I want to save the Government from itself. This will be one of the most unpopular proposals that they could put before the country. It is unnecessary to secure representation of the wage earners. It will encourage extravagance in all Departments of the State. It will certainly not enforce economy. It will give the Opposition, and I make them a present of it, a very powerful electoral advantage. I wonder at the Government bringing in this proposal. It will damage the Government in the country in the eyes of its own supporters and in the eyes of the electors generally to increase Parliamentary salaries at a time of heavily increasing taxation. As a friend of the Government and as one who wishes to support them, I regret their action, and if the Motion goes to a Division I shall vote against it.

5.rr p.m.

Sir Assheton Pownall: Before making the remarks that I intend to make, I must say a few words of reassurance and comfort to my right hon. Friend, who has taken such a very pessimistic view about the future electoral prospects of some of us. I happen to represent by far the largest electorate in London, 90,000 electors. My name happens to be rather prominent in the local Press in connection with this proposal, and I have so far not received one single letter of protest from my constituents. I can, therefore, reassure my right hon. Friend as to my electoral prospects. He tells us that he is going to vote the other way. I do not know what effect that will have. I warmly welcome the decision of the Government. When two months ago I raised this question when we were dealing with Minister's salaries, I said that as far as one could see the figure ought to be not less than£500 and not more than£600. I am delighted that the Government—as announced by Mr. Baldwin, as his last act in this House—have taken the larger figure.
In regard to salaries I always feel that as Members of Parliament we occupy an enviable and yet unenviable position. It is extremely difficult for us to do anything to put up our own salaries. We are employers and employed. I have been both in my career, but I have never before been able to vote for myself an increase in salary. We are in an unenviable position in view of the fact that capital may be made about our action, in the Press and elsewhere. I think that in this matter we have shown most proper and becoming modesty, for the very simple reason that it is common knowledge that there has been an increase in the cost of living, that the Army and the Navy after the War had appreciable increases in pay, that in 1921 Mr. Asquith, as he then was, presided over a committee which dealt with the remuneration of the senior civil servants, and that the increases then given to the heads of Departments were from£2,000 to£3,000 a year, an increase of 5o per cent. as compared with the proposed increase from£400 to£600 for Members of Parliament. I served on the Royal Commission on the Civil Service and after an exhaustive inquiry Civil servants' pay was stabilised at 51 or 52 per cent. above the pre-War figure.
In other words for every other class of the. community except Judges steps have already been taken to increase their salaries. I quite agree that the Front Government Bench is in a rather different financial position, but as the House knows a Motion moved by a back-bencher a year ago has brought sufficient pressure to bear on Ministers to make them bring up their own remuneration to what is a fairer figure in view of the responsibilities involved and the difference in the cost of living and taxation. I think this House has shown a magnificent example in these matters, and to my mind it is high time that this question was dealt with. I venture to say that no employer in these days would insist on paying the same wages as he paid 26 years ago. Such an employer would be sweating his men. These increases being given in every form of industry now, and it is not right that we who have responsibilities in this matter should not have the courage to review the situation and make the increases we are now proposing. And a 50 per cent. increase, that is from£400 to£600, is exactly the right figure based on the cost of living figures. I cannot agree with right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). His suggestion would involve every hon. Member submitting his position every year to the officer whose task it would be to scrutinise the accounts.

Sir F. Acland: We do it now.

Sir A. Pownall: The only figures submitted now are those of expenses in connection with the position as Member of Parliament, but if the right hon. Member's proposal was carried out hon. Members would have to submit figures dealing with a desire that a boy should have his education at a certain school and other questions like that. That is a thing which no one would wish, No one would desire that Members of Parliament should have the humiliation of submitting personal figures like that, and I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is totally impracticable.
There is one further point I want to make with regard to the possibilities of a pension fund. I quite agree with what the Prime Minister said with regard to this. It is obviously not a question that we can decide this afternoon, and I would suggest that a committee should be set up in the near future to consider the best method of tackling this very difficult


subject. Industrial insurance figures are obviously no help at all to us, and my own view is that there should be a small unofficial committee of, say, three senior Members chosen from the different parties and some other officer, to consider this matter. It would mean probably an income of between£5,000 and£6,000 a year, which would be enough to provide 25 pensions at£200 a year, and in view of the fact that four-fifths of those who sit in the House would not normally expect or ask for pensions—many of them would not have the qualifications either as regards time or the length of service—it would be easy in a short time to provide an appreciable reserve fund and put it in a strong position. There would have to me a means test in connection with it, that is clearly understood.
When I hear of individuals who have been in this House and who to my personal knowledge have rendered long service, finding it difficult to make both ends meet with£400 a year and are nearing the age of 60, with the prospect of having to withdraw and with no private means at all, I think it is quite time that the House of Commons got on with the question and made things better. When I consider the analogous case of the Army, where a man with 15 years' service retires at an early age and gets£150 a year pension, I think we certainly ought to take the trouble and be sufficiently far-sighted——

Vice-Admiral Taylor: An Army officer's pension is deferred pay.

Sir A. Pownall: And in this case it would be deferred pay. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his interruption. If this proposal goes through, with the further suggestion for a pension, it will do much to alleviate a measure of hardship which is now suffered by an appreciable number of Members on both sides of the House who are colleagues of ours, and will enable them to retire without any financial apprehensions as to their future.

5.22 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: I desire to offer only a few observations to the House. I voted against the Motion on the first Division when salaries were proposed to be paid to Members of Parliament. I voted on that occasion on principle, and I do not regret that vote. We are taking to-day a further step to create a new class of civil

servants. The professional politician depending for his livelihood on the House of Commons; and the suggestion is now made that there should be a provision for pensions to be provided because of his services here. It is a very serious step. In the great days of the House of Commons, to which we all refer with pride, days when the liberties of the Commons were established and the great traditions of the House founded, service in this House was given by Members voluntarily, and they were not afraid to vote against the powers of those days in order to keep their seats and preserve their rights. A serious change in the whole spirit and aspect of the House of Commons is now in progress, and we are asked to make one further step to-day.
An order for a Dissolution is always most unpopular in the House of Commons. Naturally hon. Members do not wish to lose their seats or to be put to the expenses of a General Election. The Government of the day have always that great hold on their followers, and if you add to a substantial salary, amounting to a livelihood, a pension to follow, then the powers of discipline, coercion and pressure on hon. Members will be vastly increased and we are going to lose still more of that old spirit of independence. I do not want to use arguments which have already been used, but I would say that when we offered ourselves for election all those who now sit in the House knew the terms upon which we were going to serve,£400 a year, and there is no complaint to be made. We all regret that any fellow Member should find hardship after he has served in the House of Commons, but there is an old saying in law that hard cases make bad law, and I suggest that in this matter also that saying holds good.
I endorse everything said by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) in regard to the care and caution with which we should vote ourselves more money. We are in a very peculiar position in this House. There is no one to revise our decisions, no one to say that we ought not to put our hands into the pockets of the taxpayer and pay ourselves what we choose to enact by legislation or resolution. I think the electors are well aware of that uncontrolled power which we possess, and we should exercise it only on those occasions when it is absolutely compulsory and necessary.


I deprecate the further step we are taking to create an official class of Members of Parliament, on both sides. As an old Member who has taken a pride in a long membership of the House, I deplore the action we are now asked to take, which seems to me and to many of my colleagues a downward step which will tend to degrade the House of Commons from its great position, render it less amenable to the views of the country and more under the control of organised Governments and parties.
One of the great privileges of this House has been that every Member is free to exercise his vote and follow his own conscience. The question of pensions is a matter for the future, it is not before us to-day, but may I say that I think it is another step in the same direction in which this proposed increase is leading us? I shall vote, if I am able, against the increase in salary, and only as a counsel of despair shall I support the Amendment on the Paper to postpone the increase to a future Parliament. That at any rate would be dealing straightforwardly with the electors; we should not be putting money into our own pockets without having gone to the electors to authorise our return after having voted this increase.

5.29 p.m.

Sir William Davison: It is always desirable for unofficial back-bench Members to sit up and take notice when the Leaders of the three Front Benches unanimously recommend something to the House, and therefore I think it would be well for the back-benchers to-day to consider this matter very carefully from every point of view. I associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). I think the present moment is most inopportune for the House of Commons to vote themselves a 50 per cent. addition to their salaries. We are now engaged in an immense scheme of rearmament. We are asking the country to make sacrifices and to endure increased taxation in order that this great scheme may be pushed through, for the safety of the country, with great speed. Some years ago, as soon as it was evident that the Disarmament Conference would not bear fruit and that no Great Power intended to follow our lead in dis

arming, many hon. Members, I among them, urged upon the Government the desirability of making a start with this great plan for the rearmament of the country so that we might sleep in safety.
Notwithstanding the fact that two annual conferences of Conservatives, both in 1933 and 1934, carried resolutions expressing grave anxiety as to the inadequacy of Imperial Defence, no notice was taken of our views. I have alluded to that in order to make the point that it is necessary at the present moment for far greater sacrifices to be made than would have been necessary if we had dealt with the question of rearmament some years ago. We have now to deal with it as a matter of vital emergency. When we are asking our fellow citizens to make sacrifices, when we, as the governing body of this country, are imposing heavy taxation and when we are raising further sums of money by loan, I maintain that the time is not opportune for Members of Parliament to vote for themselves a 50 per cent. increase in salary. That is my main point, but there are other considerations.
Contrary to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, I consider that nothing would be more disastrous for this country and for our democratic Constitution than to make politics a profession, a whole-time job. When a man is paid£600 a year, one gets very near the point at which the job is expected to be a whole-time job. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a whole-time job."] One of my hon. Friends says that it is a whole-time job. I am urging, contrary to what was said from the Opposition Front Bench, that it is most undesirable that it should be so. We spend far too much time sitting in Committees upstairs. That takes away from the interest in the debates in the House, and causes the public to cease taking that vital interest in those debates which it used to take even when news papers were not as common and as cheap as they are to-day. The country used formerly to take far more interest in the debates in the House.

Mr. Garro Jones: How does the hon.Gentleman suggest that the work which is now done in Committee upstairs should be done? Should we have additional sittings or sit for longer hours in the House?

Sir W. Davison: It is very easy to answer that question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think there is any reason for going into that.

Sir W. Davison: My point is that it is very undesirable that we should have a class of professional politicians, and that a young man should say, "Shall I become a barrister, a solicitor or join one of the great trades, or shall I try to get£600 a year as a Member of Parliament?" Such a person necessarily loses independence. It would be impossible for a person who depended on the£600 a year and who had no outside job of any kind, to be independent. He would have to do as he was told by the Government of the day and by the Whips of the day who, as every one knows, have quite enough power as it is. Hon. Members may ask how the work could be done without its being a full-time job. As I have said, too much time is spent in sitting in Committees upstairs; there ought to be Committees of the Whole House. Moreover, we have far too much legislation. The country would be better off if there were far less legislation and if the laws there are were properly administered.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that immediately I approached this subject you ruled it out of order, but that the hon. Member has now been permitted to pursue it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am following very carefully what is being said, and I do not require the hon. Member's assistance.

Sir W. Davison: I think I have made that very important point clear. Another argument which has been made, and with which hon. Members in every part of the House must sympathise, is that there are certain Members on all sides of the House who find it difficult to enjoy the amenities which other hon. Members have. There are very great difficulties with regard to that. As far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, I had always understood—I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that many of them paid their official remuneration into a pool and received it back again increased either to£500 or£600 a year out of the trade unions' political fund. I do not suggest that there is anything discreditable in

that, but I should like the House to be quite sure that if any additional salary is voted it will really benefit the hon. Members themselves, and will not merely save money for the trade unions which now, as I have been informed, increase the salaries of some hon. Members up to a particular sum.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not want to speak for the Opposition, and I have some diffidence in interrupting, but I am the chairman of a union. The practice to which the hon. Member referred may be the practice in the case of some unions, but the overwhelming bulk of the trade union Members who come to the House do not receive anything from the trade unions. For many years I have been connected with my union, and I have not had a penny piece from it.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I can assure the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that the majority of Members on this side of the House do not receive a halfpenny from a trade union, a cooperative society or any outside organisation.

Sir W. Davison: I am glad to know that. We all sympathise with the view that as far as possible, we should be as equal as possible in this assembly, but if the House votes an increase in Members' salaries, it should go to ameliorate the lot of the particular hon. Member and not to save the expenses of any outside organisation. I think there is a great deal in what was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). We had a succession of capable persons in the House for a long time without salary, and recently at a salary of£400 a year, and hon. Members who undertook the job knew what they were to be paid. I know that one of the most popular Members of the House—I do not intend to give any inkling as to who he is or on which side he sits—has all his expenses provided by his constituents. I quite agree that nobody makes a profit out of the '400 a year that is paid to hon. Members, for it does not anything like enable them to pay their way; bat it is at any rate a solatium; and therefore I do not disapprove of its continuance.
But having regard to present conditions and bearing in mind, as was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Bur-


ton, that no one can say "Nay" to us and no one can say "£600 is too much or you ought to vote yourselves only £500 "—for it is entirely of our own volition that we do it—I maintain that if there are hard cases, as no doubt there are, it is far more appropriate that the constituencies, which as a rule are very loyal to Members on all sides of the House who serve them faithfully, should provide the additional sum required to meet the difference between pinching and the enjoyment of ordinary amenities. With regard to a pensions fund, I think there is a great deal to be said for having some sort of pensions fund, in the same way that Cabinet Ministers in the old days could get a pension if they required it. As the Prime Minister said, I think that is a question which it is worth going into, and that there should be the nucleus of a fund in order that men who have given 10 or 12 years of their life in this very hard service and who, through no fault of their own, fall on to hard times, should be able to receive assistance from a Committee of the House, the proceedings of which would be secret.

5.43 P.m.

Mr. Magnay: I intend to speak not only for myself but for those who cannot, from natural diffidence and the intimacy that is connected with their position in life, speak as freely as I can. I crave the indulgence of the House for that type of Members and for those Members who, after the 1931 Election, were placed in very hard circumstances indeed. I felt ashamed that the Mother of Parliaments should allow any one of her sons to fall into such circumstances. To me the whole question is whether Members of Parliament should receive a salary or not. If salaries or expenses are to be paid, they should be adequate. Therefore, the only question we have to settle is whether£400 or£600 is the right sum. I suggest to the House that if£600 was correct in 1911,£600 now, for the reasons given so adequately by the Prime Minister to-day, cannot be wrong.
In 1911, as we have been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), it was stated in the House that payment of Members would be an incentive to corruption. As one of the working class, may I say that I thought, in my innocence of heart,

that it was a proper and right ambition for the men and boys of my class to work to get into the House and that they should have the wherewithal which makes it possible for them to come into the House. I go back in my experience to a night in the old town hall in Newcastle-on-Tyne when a young man named Arthur Henderson proposed a vote of confidence in John Morley, the man at whose feet I sat, with Thomas Burt and J. M. Robertson—because I was brought up in the strictest sect of the Pharisees of Free Trade and Liberalism. On that occasion, John Morley asked who the young man was and expressed a desire that that young man should stand as joint candidate with him for Newcastle-on-Tyne. But Arthur Henderson was a working man and had no money. We must not speak anything but good of the dead and I only say that another person was brought in with nothing like the capability or political sagacity of Arthur Henderson, and Arthur Henderson went to Darlington to be Liberal agent for Sir Joseph Pease. In due time he thought he would have the reversion of the seat but when the time came, a relative of the hon. Member who put a question the other day in which I ventured to intervene with a supplementary, was preferred to Arthur Henderson.
Many a time I have wondered what would have been the effect upon the course of politics in this country if the advice of John Morley, given years ago in the old Newcastle town hall had been taken. The Labour party, in all probability, would never have been. Arthur Henderson was an able organiser of the Liberal party but because of lack of money he was not considered good enough to be a candidate for the Liberal party. Those things have ceased to he but when I was told that the payment of Members would be an incentive to corruption I was surprised, because I thought in my innocence, or if you like to call it my vanity, that it was a natural and manly ambition on the part of a young man to be a Member of Parliament. I thought that even I might, some day come to this Mother of Parliaments and represent my native constituency, and that it should not matter whether I had the money or not as long as I had the brains and the guts. I suggest that the payment of Members has been an incentive to proper


ambition. After all, this is the House of Commons. It is the House of the common people. I have told my constituents that they had as much right to be in the House of Commons as I had and that the only reason why they could not go there, was because there was no room for them. There is no room for more than a pint in a pint pot.
I am sure that the last speaker is as sincere as I am in his concern for the quality and integrity of the House of Commons. I suggest, however, that we come here not as delegates but as representatives of our constituency. I have said to my constituents many a time "If you want a 'yes man' go to the other fellow, but I am not going to promise you this, that and the other, because you demand it. When I get to the House I am going to examine each question in the light of my own conscience and judgment, on the facts as they are presented." We must have representatives and not delegates. Let it not be imagined that we do not know that there are people retained on both sides of the House for certain powerful organisations. It is whispered all over the House and we know the men who get up for the B.I.F. as well as for the miners and the cooperative stores. I deprecate it very much that any man or woman in this House sent here as the free representative of a free people should be in the pocket of any society or organisation. It is just as true on this side as on the other side but whether it is the co-operative stores or the miners' associations or the B.I.F. or anything else outside this House—call it Transport House or anything else—it is all the same.
We are free men and it is sheer nonsense and humbug to say that any of us would be corrupted by receiving for working expenses£600 instead of£400. As a matter of fact, I thought when I came here that this was going to be the "canniest" job of my life. I thought I wad going to have a nice, quiet time in my old age—a sort of job like that of a policeman-in the park in which I would only have to walk round and would have very little to do. I never made a bigger mistake. This is a hard place. I am generally the first out of my hotel every morning and I am always the last in. There are many hon. Members opposite who know that full well because I go home

with them and they will vouch for me that I go straight home. [Laughter.] This is a very serious matter, and if hon. Members think I am not speaking seriously I assure them that I always speak badly when I feel very deeply because I get rather hot under the collar. This is a whole-time job. I dare say that I do more than my share, working as I do on three Committees, but I have always been used to working hard at anything about which I was concerned.
It is not only the work in Parliament but the work in our constituencies which counts. The man who lives in his own constituency is the man whom constituents prefer to have as their representative. How is it that I am here representing the strongest Labour constituency in England? [An HON. MEMBER: "Heaven knows!"] I have not the slightest doubt Heaven does know, but the hon. Member who mentioned the fact ought to have done so with more respect. Those, like myself, who have lived in our own constituencies for 40 years have a great advantage over the carpet-baggers who come from far and wide, but those who live in their own constituency have all sorts of things to do every week-end. I have to see the town clerk or the mayor or open a fête or a lifeboat institution, or perform some service every week-end.
It is a whole-time job and I speak from the point of view of a Member who lives 40o miles away from this House. It is a simple matter for anybody who lives and works in London to work until half-past two every day and then to give the fag-end of the day to the deliberations of this House. That is all right for those who are making fortunes in the City of London in all sorts of ways—who never come here until after Questions and who never put in an appearance at Prayers. But for those of us who come here every Monday as you know very well, Mr. Deputy-speaker, and who remain here until Friday—the people who do the job—it is a very different thing. The voting lists show who do the work. Even to-day little over 200 voted on the Government side, and you will find that it is generally the people who live at considerable distances from the House who do the real work of the House. I suggest that their point of view rather than that of the people who live in the vicinity of the


House of Commons ought to be considered.
If the opponents of this Motion are sincere, it is easy for them to refuse to pocket the insult. But when we have been making grants of various kinds to shipping and other things, I have never noticed that they had much to say about it. We have had considerable benefits conferred on cotton and shipping and other industries without any protest such as is being made against this proposal, and I think the difference between them is like the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I am amazed that some of those who take that view expect us to believe in their sincerity. There is going to be no return to amateur status in this House. There are no two doors here as there are in the pavilion at Lord's cricket ground from which the amateurs and the professionals emerge separately. We all come in here on the same door and whether we have gone to Harrow or Eton or to an elementary school, as I did—getting up at half past five o'clock in the morning so as to be able to do my work and at the same time equip myself to be a fit representative in this House—once we conic through that door we are done with snobbery, and that ought to be understood
I can understand an aristocracy of brains and knowing my own obvious limitations, I am ready to bow the knee to superior brains, but I will not bow to those who have merely chosen well their fathers and grandfathers and other relations. I had the best of fathers. There was never a better man lived and even if I had anything to do with it, I would not have swopped him for any other. I am proud to have sprung from the working class. I do not try to imitate the emasculated and insipid broadcasting English. I have, I expect, local colour in my speech and people know where I come from—the North where we breed men and not boys. We are proud of the men from the North and if people from Birmingham travel on the road selling dolls' eyes and chromium plate and bicycles and that sort of thing, get£1,000 a year, I am not going to be guilty of the false modesty of saying that I am not worth£600 a year. I am prepared to go before my 78,000 constituents and to tell them that Parliament thought I was getting too little and that I agreed with Parliament.

5.57 P.m.

Mr. Wise: I find it difficult to dispute very much of what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. His personality is always most charming and his expressions forcible, but I do not propose to follow him too far into his autobiography, to which I listened with the greatest possible pleasure. If he will forgive me for saying so, however, he did not advance many cogent arguments in favour of this increase. His arguments possibly were cogent and convincing enough on the point that he himself is worth considerably more than the State now pays him, but that is a very different proposition to saying that it is right and proper that the general remuneration of Members of Parliament should be increased. What are the arguments which have been put forward? As one of my hon. Friends said, when the leaders of all three parties agree it is time for back-benchers to beware. All three agree on this increase and all three have used the same argument. They say that the difference between the conditions to-day and the conditions in 1911 is so great as to justify an increase of 50 per cent. That, of course, is presuming that the grant of£400 a year was justified in 1911, which is still a matter of some doubt in the minds of a number of hon. Members. Even assuming it to have been justified then, that sum was largely proposed as a contribution towards meeting the expenses of political life, and I question whether those expenses are any higher to-day than they were in 1911
Speaking from memory I think in those days Parliamentary candidates were expected to cover the returning officer's expenses which they are not expected to do now. In those days, Members of Parliament did not receive free railway travelling, which they receive now. To base this claim for an increase, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did on the report of a committee sitting in 1920, is to ignore the general argument used by the Front Bench and triumphantly used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to-day, as to the enormous fall in the cost of living under our own administration. We are not entitled to have it both ways. We cannot at one moment say that the rise in the cost of living has been so large that we must give ourselves another 50 per cent., and then turn round


to the unemployed man and say that the cost of living has gone down enormously and that he does not want any extra dole. That is not a consistent position, nor is it one which this House should adopt.
I want to put a point to hon. Members opposite, whose consciences may be clearer on this matter than they are possibly on this side of the House. It is possibly true that if they were in office unemployment relief would be higher, pensions would be increased, and much less would be spent on Defence. There would, however, be a limit somewhere and it would be rigidly enforced, and it would be just as difficult for them to go to their constituents and say, "We are not prepared to give you any more but we are prepared to give more to ourselves," as it is for us to-day. When we are increasing taxation on all sides, increasing the Income Tax, levying a special Surtax on industry, maintaining a fairly high rate of Customs duties, and a fairly high rate of Excise, all as a contribution towards the Defence of this country—a most necessary contribution which I would not like to see reduced by one penny—I do not think it is a proper time for us to make our contribution towards this expenditure by dipping into the public purse for another£112,000. That does not seem to me to be in any way consistent.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) justified the proposal by saying that Parliament had a heavier and more serious task now than it had when the payment of Members was first adopted. Is it fair to say that our task is heavier and more serious after the passage of the Statute of Westminster, which has relieved us of a large part of the work of the Dominions and Colonies, and after the passage of the Government of India Act, which has removed the responsibility for the administration of India from this House? There is a remark of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which I feel misled the House. He said that this extra.£200 a year was decided on after long deliberation by himself and his colleagues because they thought that the larger sum would settle indefinitely the question of Members' salaries. Do they really think that any more than it was thought in 1911, when one of those who opposed the Measure was ridiculed because he said:

It is absolutely inevitable that once salaries are paid to Members of Parliament who have control over the amount of their salaries, like all other classes who are paid wages, they will seek to raise those wages whenever they get the opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1911; col. 1394, Vol. 29.]
We sought to raise them once and we were told that it was a final grant. As night follows day we will seek to raise them again. This raising of the standard of salaries does not really produce any higher standard in either the intelligence or general assiduity of Members. No foreign legislature is paid as little as this, yet every Member who has spoken to-day has told us how much better we are than all the other legislatures put together. In the old debate on this question reference was made to the United States of America, where the remuneration of a Congressman is£2,000, together with a good deal of extra allowance for secretarial services. In a magnificent flourish and holding up that as an example, the late Lord President of the Council said:
As a matter of fact, the tide that is flowing in America just now towards purity … is finding the payment of members helping it, because, as a result of the payment of members, it is able to bring to its assistance a body of clean-minded men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1911; COL 1401, Vol. 29.]
I do not think it is possible to say that Congress to-day is more clean-minded than the days of Washington or Adams, or less corrupt, or that the payment of members has assisted there. Is the standard of the French Chamber so much higher than ours because members are paid more? Is the standard of any Colonial legislature higher? The argument that higher payment produces a higher standard is not true. Everybody sympathises with hard cases on either side of the House, but there are hard cases in the service of the State in every profession and calling. Those hard cases must be taken as a necessity in the service of one's country. We are not the only people who are occasionally called upon to make sacrifices in the service of our country, nor do I think it desirable that we should cease to suffer some considerable inconvenience as a return for the privilege of being Members of this House. Remuneration is not solely a matter of cash. There is not merely prestige, which is worth something, but the remuneration which takes the shape of power is worth more. Surely, Members of this House cannot


complain that they are not endowed with considerable remuneration in the authority and the power which they are entitled to claim.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I hope I may without offence make the comment that for the most part those who have spoken against this Motion are those in very comfortable circumstances and, like the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), have comfortable city constituencies. The hon. Member said that constituencies could help very much. I do not think that he has knowledge, as some of us have at first hand, of the distressed areas where we cannot look for help of that kind. At one time it vas the ancient law in England and Scotland that Members were paid by their constituencies. That system existed until 1681. I do not think that our public life was ever so pure, either in those times or in the time when Members were not paid, as it is to-day. Some hon. Members have shown a lack of proportion in speaking on this subject. The hon. Member for South Kensington referred to rearmament and showed a lack of perspective, in suggesting that this£112,000 could have any bearing on the sum of£1,500,000,000. Reference was made by other hon. Members to pensions, and we know that replies have been given from the Government bench showing that the cost of raising pensions from 10S. to£1 would be£83,000,000. It is irrelevant to compare these things.

Sir W. Davison: My point was not that there was any comparison between the cost of this increase and the cost of armaments, but that the community was being asked to make serious sacrifices in order to provide this immense sum of£1,500,000,000.

Mr. Barr: My point is that the£112,000 is not a serious sacrifice when it is divided among the millions of voters in the country. Almost all hon. Members who have spoken against the Motion have said that it is not opportune. It never was. That argument was used against the giving of vouchers in 1920. It was used in 1911. May I say with the utmost respect and reverence that one who has passed from us, whom we all honoured, used that argument in 1911. I refer to the late Sir Austen Chamberlain,

but he made the most honourable amends, and I am not giving away any secret when I say that it is to his action in the later weeks and months of his life that this subject has advanced as it is to-day. I could not help thinking, when I heard the Prime Minister introducing the Motion to-day, that we were crowning the life of one who went before, Joseph Chamberlain, who said:
You pay your Ministers, and I cannot for the life of me see why Members of Parliament are the only people who work for nothing.
The Select Committee which sat in 1920 said in Article 7 of their report:
In the course of our proceedings several members have stated frankly that, although they opposed the original resolution, experience has shown the public advantage of the present system.
A good deal of reference has been made to Members voting their own salaries. I do not suppose there is a Member who is not called on from time to time to give a vote that will indirectly affect his own circumstances, such as subsidies for shipping, derating, agricultural subsidies, and the like, but the private interest of each of us must be kept in the background. On this point I would like to give the judgment of Mr. Speaker Gully in 1898 on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill:
There must be a direct pecuniary interest of a private and particular and not of a public and general nature"—
to prevent one voting—
when the question before the House is of a public and general nature, and incidentally involves the pecuniary interest of a class which includes Members of the House, they are not prevented by the rules of the House from voting.
The inadequacy of the present allowance has long been recognised, and in the Report of the Select Committee issued on 22nd December, 1920, recommendation No. 15 reads thus:
Further consideration should be given in the near future to the difficult financial position of certain Members.
And Recommendation No. 20 says that facilities should be provided to meet the very heavy postage of Members' letters.
I should like to introduce a note of autobiography. The last speaker made reference to those who had made sacrifices. I hesitate to give my own experiences. I had a full time situation as the Home Mission Secretary of my Church. I was paid£650, and if I had continued


I should have been able to retire long before now on£430. I came into this House and I made that sacrifice, and I have never regretted it, but it has meant that every week-end and during the week I am preaching and lecturing to make up an additional£150 a year, and when all is said and done I find myself going rather backwards than forwards. Therefore I may say with great gratitude that this is to me and to many in this House a most welcome Motion, and I should like to thank the Prime Minister for the action he has taken.
Some critics have said that a payment of£600 would depreciate the standing of hon. Members—I think one said that it would be "degrading" to the House. Does it degrade a minister of religion to have a full-time office and to receive a sum of£600? I look upon my calling here as no less a service of the Master than the service in which I was formerly engaged. Then there was a reference to professional politicians. Those who spoke against professional politicians spoke of Mr. Gladstone and the great men who had gone before. They were whole-time men and professional politicians, if we are going to use that phrase at all. The right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) spoke of the great days of the House of Commons, of the great days of the past, and spoke also, as did others, of the more decadent times on which we have fallen. I recalled, as he was speaking, the anecdote of a man who was bewailing the passing of the great men of the past. "All the great men are dead and gone," he said, "and I am not feeling very well myself."
I should like to touch also upon another argument, about the independence we might surrender by accepting this payment. I was brought up to believe that the first foundation of independence was to be independent in livelihood and in means. If I may venture to quote, I am not saying from whom I am quoting, but hon. Members will know:
Not for to hide it in a hedge,
Not for a train attendant,
But for the glorious privilege
Of being independent.
I say that a man who is worthily paid for his work is more independent in every sense than a man who is unworthily paid. This argument has been used in every change that has taken place in the

constitution of this House. The argument that the House was being degraded was used in connection with the Reform Bill. While we have less of brilliance than, perhaps, was shown by individual orators in the past, I venture to say that, taking the House as a whole, in its industry, its work and its service, it has never stood at a higher or more worthy level than it is to-day. In the "Reminiscences" of the Rev. T. Mozley there is a reference to the corrupt boroughs of old, and the argument was used, although it seems ludicrous to think of it, that they got better Members of Parliament under that old system, when representation was bought and sold, than you would get in any other form of representation. I ask the House to listen to this closing word from the Rev. T. Mozley, who is speaking of an interview he had with a man who for 40 years returned the Members for the corrupt borough of Old Sarum:
I have been the Borough of Old Sarum and have returned two representatives to Parliament for 40 years, all honest men and gentlemen, not the sort of fellows they are sending to Parliament in these days.
I prefer the sort of fellows they are sending to Parliament in these days, and will send, undiminished and, indeed, enhanced in character and in standing, because of this proposal.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in line 3, after "increased," to insert "as from the beginning of the next Parliament."
I do not want to follow into the general aspects of the question which have been under discussion, because I wish to pass to a particular problem. The Motion proposed by the Prime Minister omits to state one factor which is of great importance, and that is the date upon which the new salary is to come into force. I have put down an Amendment which will supply that omission. Being, as I am, in entire sympathy with the main objects of the Motion, it is not wholly a pleasant task to ask the House to postpone the application of that Motion to the next Parliament. I recognise that it is asking other people to accept what will for them be a far more serious sacrifice than it will be for me. If there were a needs test in connection with this extra£200 I could not qualify for it, but I know there are many Members to whom this


extra£200 will be a Godsend—I will not say many Members, but a number—and I do not care to think of myself as moving an Amendment which would deprive them of what means so much more to them than it does to me. Nevertheless, I think that the argument that on the grounds of public decency we ought not now to vote ourselves this increase should be put in the House arid it comes fittingly perhaps from one who in 1911 supported the original Motion for the payment of Members and who is now a strong and convinced supporter of the present Government. Those who belong to that band are very few in number, I think there are perhaps not more than three or four in the whole House, among the Private Members, and it is perhaps fitting that one of us should state the case.
Before I come to the Amendment there are two short points I wish to put in connection with the figure of£600. That figure contains two factors: one part the pure salary and the other the allowance for expenses. I think the Government might give us more information on that latter head. We are entitled to know the average expenses of groups of Members. The figures are known, they are known to the Treasury, they are known, I suppose, to an officer of the House here, but when I ask for them I am told that they are secrets relating to Income Tax and cannot be divulged. Let me give the type of question I want answered. We know that there are a number of Members whose expenses absorb their whole salary. How many of them are there? Are there a couple of dozen? We know, also, that there are a large number of Members who make returns and claim exemptions in respect of their expenses. How many Members do that, and what is the average amount of expenses on which they get an allowance? Those figures are obviously of great importance to us when we want to explain the facts to our constituents. If we can tell them plainly that there are a couple of dozen Members whose salaries are all absorbed by expenses, and that there are 300 whose average expenses are£250, that would be a most convincing argument that there is a strong case for an increase over the present£400. It is the more ridiculous that the figures are denied to us because, were I still a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I could get them

very quickly. It would be open to the Public Accounts Committee to examine the nature of the allowances made in respect of expenses. It would be open to the Public Accounts Committee to ask for information about that. Generalised information could be given which would reveal no secrets of individual incomes but yet give valuable facts.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that the Public Accounts Committee are entitled to obtain, or are in the habit of obtaining, information from the Income Tax Commissioners?

Mr. Morgan Jones: As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee this year I suggest to the hon. Member that the request for information which he has addressed to the Treasury, and which the Treasury say is not available on account of the public interest involved, would not be permitted in the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Denman: Then the Public Accounts Committee must have degenerated a good deal. I am not asking for any personal Income Tax returns to be revealed, but only for generalised figures which are of importance. Who is afraid of our knowing what are the average expenses of a Member of Parliament? Who objects to it?

Mr. Jones: I merely meant that if the Inland Revenue take the view that it is contrary to the public interest to give certain information on the Floor of the House of Commons, they would take that view in the committee.

Mr. Denman: I entirely agree with that, but I am equally sure that the Inland Revenue authorities and the Public Accounts Committee would not take that view of the public interest. The other point I wish to raise in connection with this figure of£600 will, I am sure, receive widespread sympathy. That figure for the payment of salaries is not the best way of dealing with this problem in this House. We have here a community in which a system of family allowances could be applied with almost perfect ease. I suggest a basic figure of£500 for everybody with allowances for wives and children, as far better suited to the needs of Members.

Mr. Logan: How many wives to a Member?

Mr. Denman: All he has. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will tell us what proportion, if any, of the hard cases submitted to him related to bachelors. On£500 a year, a bachelor Member of this House should exist without hardship, and if£600 is the right figure for a bachelor, it is far too low for a Member with a wife and family who have to live away in the provinces.

Mr. Macquisten: The hon. Member does not know the bachelors.

Mr. Denman: I turn now to the Amendment and suggest that it is somewhat indecent to add 50 per cent. to our salaries without giving the electorate a chance to object. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten the precedent of 1911. Let me quote from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
The Prime Minister, immediately before the last General Election, stated to the House of Commons that he proposed, if we got a majority in the new Parliament, to submit a Resolution … for the purpose of paying the Members." — [OFFICIAL. REPORT, l0th August, 1911; COL 1366, Vol. 29.]
Later on in the Debate there was quoted the exact sentence that Mr. Asquith used:
It is the intention of the Government, if they have the opportunity, and the requisite Parliamentary following, next year, to propose provision out of public funds for the payment of Members, and they think that that intention being announced before the General Election takes place, there will be no constitutional impropriety in the provision being made effective if Parliament sees fit to approve it, in the Parliament which will assemble after the General Election."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1911; COL 1401, Vol. 29.]
Mr. Asquith was not a constitutional pedant, but a person with a finer sense of constitutional propriety than any of the leading men of our time. It is quite clear that in his mind it would have been constitutionally improper for this House to vote itself a salary if the electorate had not been given a chance, in advance, to express its views.
I heard the Prime Minister expressing alarm at the thought of this question being raised at a General Election; I must remind him that that actually happened, and no disaster occurred. A number of hon. Members went through that election. The question raised very little interest. The public mind will not be

concerned with these matters, but the electorate will have the chance of saying: "We do not want that salary increased." There were Members who put the issue in their election addresses of 1911. The Master of Elibank testified that he mentioned it at almost all his meetings; so that it was before the country. Surely that is a precedent which we ought not to neglect. We have no doubt the power to vary the conditions, and even the rate, of our salaries. We have, in point of fact, made changes in relation to travel vouchers, and so on. We might make a grant to the refreshment department to enable meals to be cheaper; but when we are proposing to increase our salaries by 50 per cent., is it quite decent for us to do it without proper consultation? I ask the House to realise the substantial difference between the position which I occupied in 1911 and the position I occupy now. I then came to the House fully authorised to vote for the payment of Members' salaries, and I did so.

Sir John Haslam: Was the hon. Member authorised to vote for an increase in Ministers' salaries, and if he was how did he act?

Mr. Denman: That is a rather separate point, and I will come to it in one moment. I want to point out the difference in the authority of those who voted for payment of Members in 1911 and their position now. The position is that, in 1935, we were elected on the basis of a salary of£400, which went with the office. Every elector who sent us here had reason to think that the salary would be£400 for the duration—to use the language of War time. There was a quite reasonable anticipation that for the lifetime of Parliament we should go on at that salary. That position is completely different from that which we had in 1911.
The question of Ministers' salaries was raised by the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. I am amazed that, with his experience and knowledge of the consitution, he should think that there is any real analogy between the control of Ministers' salaries and of our own. The Executive is a body for which Parliament is responsible; its personnel, its duties, its salary, are the continuing subjects of Parliamentary control.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is not the back bencher just as much a part


of the machinery of Parliament as the Executive, in a democratic country like ours?

Mr. Denman: I am saying that the Executive is under the control of Parliament as regards salaries, duties, and personnel. Think of all the differences of treatment in the two cases. In the case of the Ministers, we had two Select Committees. in 1920 and 1930. We had a Resolution of this House, upon which there were no Government Whips. We had a mention in the King's Speech and, finally, we had a Bill which went through prolonged debate and had to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. What comparison is there between that procedure and the procedure of a Motion debated upon a half day, upon which we solely decide, arid which requires no Bill and no consent from any other place?

Sir J. Haslam: I wanted only to point out that the hon. Member did not consult his electors about the matter of Ministers' salaries; that is his chief grievance, and the analogy still holds.

Mr. Denman: I am sorry that my argument still remains obscure, but it is quite simple. The control of the Executive is a function of Parliament, one of its normal functions, on which we do not require the specific and special authority of the electorate. On the other hand, on the question of payment of Members, we have, in the first place, consulted the electorate before we acted. That seems a sound precedent. In the question of our own salaries we have no other authority whatever to go to; in the case of the Ministers' salaries, we had Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Logan: Suppose the electors sent a. Member to Parliament, a righteous, good-living and really decent type of man; ought he to have provision made for his maintenance while here, and if so, why not give it to him?

Mr. Denman: Certainly; that was the principle which we decided in 1911 when we fixed the figure. We went before the electorate in 1935 and invited them to elect us on that figure.

Sir J. Haslam: It was never mentioned.

Mr. Denman: It was never discussed, because no elector thought that we were going to increase our salaries.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this matter, and I do not want to suggest that by increasing our own salaries we are doing something grossly indecent or acting in a way which would mean a serious blot upon our reputation; but I think it does mean a slight depreciation of the currency of Parliamentary practice. The whole subject, however, will pass from the public mind in quite a short time. The slight stain on our good name will fade. One of the most delightful features of this House is its almost cat-like quality of quietly licking itself clean after having done anything to besmirch itself. Nevertheless, I still ask why should we ladle out mud for our opponents to throw at us? This matter will be broadcast to-night all over the country. A great many people will think of us as sensible people who can probably decide fairly upon the question, but there will be quite a lot who take a different view. There will be some who will say: "How like a democratic assembly to vote itself money." There will be a larger number of people who will say: "I want this or that, but my Member can never find me the money for it; yet he can find£200 easily enough for himself." That is not the kind of thing we ought to encourage, and we ought not to give openings to have it said against us. We have a responsibility beyond this country. What goes on in this House sets standards, and is an example to bodies far outside our own country. I suggest we ought not to set this precedent or take a course which will not be consonant with the dignity and honour of this House. I believe that our true answer to this Motion is to accept it with thanks for our successors, and not for ourselves.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend who moved it, I must confess that I do so with great reluctance. No one in the world likes to take what appears to be a high-minded line, knowing that the sacrifice involved will be much heavier for other people than for himself. I do not pretend in the least to be indifferent to the payment of another£200 a year to Members of this House, but I also recognise that, if Parliament decided not to pay that increase, other Members would


suffer more by that decision than I should, and, therefore, I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say that I feel a very real embarrassment in taking this line. Another reason is that I am very sorry to find myself in complete disagreement on a matter, not of detail but of principle, with the Prime Minister and the Treasury Bench. I am a humble and docile person, who prefers to believe that his leaders are inspired, and, therefore, infallible, and I experience real discomfort when on a matter of principle I am compelled to disagree with them.
Those who are supporting the Amendment, or opposing the Motion itself, must feel that discomfort all the more strongly since this proposal was recommended to the House by a great House of Commons man, Lord Baldwin, who has now gone to the other House. In spite of that, and hating the business of doing it, I nevertheless feel it my duty to second this Amendment, and to second it purely on grounds of principle. I believe that the dignity of Parliament, and the esteem in which Parliament is held, will be affected in the long run by what we are doing this evening. I am not opposed to the payment of Members; it would be idle to be so; it is a thing that was decided long ago. Nor am I opposed to a 5o per cent. increase. I have not the figures or the knowledge myself, but I am quite ready to believe Lord Baldwin, and the present Prime Minister, and others who have looked into this matter, when they say that it is a proper increase. I oppose only the principle that Parliament should vote this increase to itself. I conceive that we are in the position of directors of a company, of which the country—the electorate—are the shareholders. Who can conceive of the directors of a company deciding to raise their own fees without consulting the shareholders? [Interruption.] Hon. Members above the Gangway laugh, but that would be a most improper procedure.
What are the arguments which have been advanced to-day which suggest that Ave have a right to exempt ourselves from conditions and limitations which govern all other people on the question of voting advantages to themselves? The first argument is the argument with which it is

most difficult of all to deal—the argument of the hard case. I think I have heard all the speeches that have been made in this Debate, and I have listened to them realising to the full how deeply people feel on this subject, and what good reasons they have for feeling deeply about it. But it is not only in this House that hard cases exist. We are constantly being told, and, indeed, it has been said by some speakers in this Debate, that legislation on hard cases makes bad law. Again and again in hard pension cases, in cases in connection with the Means Test, and so on, we are told that we can prove nothing by quoting hard cases. I have heard that answer again and again from the Treasury Bench. If that be the attitude in regard to other hard cases, what right have we to say that hard cases in this Parliament should count for more than hard cases elsewhere? If hon. Members suppose that that argument will not be spread throughout the country by those who want to undermine the authority of Parliament, I think they are very deeply mistaken.
I come now to the second argument for this Motion, an argument which was dealt with in part by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, namely, the argument that we have already done this for Ministers. I must say I agree entirely with the way in which my hon. Friend dealt with that argument. I take full responsibility, and am prepared to do so before my constituents, for the rise in the salaries of Ministers. I have done nothing for myself; I have received no advantage in the matter; and I am prepared to say to my constituents that I believe it to be essential and desirable in the interests of government at the present time. But it is a very different matter to go and justify to your constituents doing the same thing for yourself—putting your own hand into the taxpayer's pocket. I can see no parallel whatever between voting an increase in the salaries of Ministers and voting an increase in one's own salary.
The only other argument that I have heard advanced in favour of this Motion being carried out at once is the old argument that was used for the murder of Macbeth:
If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.


We have heard that argument a great deal, and, of course, there are precedents in Parliamentary history which suggest that, if it were done, it were better done quickly. I remember that in South Australia they desired to raise their own salaries, but decided that they could not do it with propriety without consulting the electorate; and, according to the Constitution of the State, they held a referendum, in which the increase of salaries was defeated by two votes to one. No doubt there is a danger in referring these things to the electorate, and it may be true that it is best, if you want to get these things through, to rush them as quickly as possible. But I dissent from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he says that we are better able to decide these things than the electorate of the country. I think that the electorate is extremely fair-minded on these matters, and it is a little dangerous to suggest that we decide these things in this House in a judicial atmosphere when as a matter of fact we are making ourselves judges in our own case. That is not a description of a judicial atmosphere, and I think one has to be a little careful about arguments which magnify the authority and discretion of this House at the expense of the electorate on a subject of this kind.
I think, too, that the attitude which we are called upon to take here this evening contrasts unfavourably with the scruple which was shown by all parties and in all quarters of the House in 1911. I, like other Members, have been referring to that debate. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment quoted Mr. Asquith's declaration. Mr. Asquith made it perfectly plain that it is impossible to consult the electorate specifically on this point at a General Election. It was certainly impossible then, when the election was being fought on the Parliament Bill, and much bigger issues were at stake. But at any rate the subject was mentioned; the Government announced that they were going to do this thing if they were returned to power; and Mr. Asquith therefore quite rightly said that there was no constitutional impropriety in the new Parliament carrying the payment of Members if it had been put before the electorate in that manner. But let the House observe that his declaration that there would be no constitutional impropriety in that

action certainly means that he would have seen constitutional impropriety in passing a measure of this kind without any reference of any kind to the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), who was recently Prime Minister, himself expressed a particular punctilio on this subject at that time. He said:
I confess I felt rather unhappy about it myself and I therefore specifically mentioned it in my election address."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th August, 1911; col. 1401, Vol. 29.]
That punctilio, which was felt by a Labour Member at that time, was felt also on the Liberal Government benches and on the Conservative benches. One of the most respected Members of this House, who unfortunately is no longer with us, Sir Austen Chamberlain, then Mr. Austen Chamberlain, dealt with this matter, and expressed a great dislike for the Resolution, not merely on the ground that he was opposed to the payment of Members, but on two grounds—first of all, that he did not think it had been properly before the electorate, and also because he thought that, whether that was the case or not, it was not desirable that Members of Parliament should vote advantages to themselves in the same Parliament. He took that line then, and he contrasted the attitude of Parliament in voting salaries to itself with the line which Ministers were taking at that time in a Circular which they had issued to local authorities forbidding them to appoint to offices of profit persons who had held municipal office during the previous 12 months. Contrasting those two things, he said, and I really think that a voice so much respected in this House for so long should be listened to on this subject:
I think there is something shocking in the proceeding. I am sorry that, though there be a majority in favour of the payment of Members of this House, they should not feel the same delicacy about making the payment applicable to themselves that has been felt by Ministers, and enforced by Ministers on the local authorities throughout the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1911; col. 1462, Vol. 29.]
Sir Herbert Samuel, who now speaks under the same name in another place, in winding up the Debate, put that point specially and, in the name of the Liberal party assured the House that the matter had been put clearly before the electorate


in distinct and emphatic terms, amounting to a Parliamentary pledge, and that therefore there could be no impropriety. It will be observed that in that Debate great emphasis was laid, not only upon the principle of payment, but on the method by which it was done, and that the strongest opposition was on the ground that the electorate had not been adequately consulted, and that Parliament had no authority in any case to vote money to itself. I would remind the House once again of Mr. Austen Chamberlain's sentence:
I think there is something shocking in the proceeding.

Sir Robert Young: Did not Sir Austen Chamberlain, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, give travel allowances to Members without consulting Parliament or the electorate, and was not that a large increase to many Mmbers of the House?

Sir E. Grigg: The hon. Gentleman may be right; I am afraid my memory does not go back to that. If we could have had the opinion of Sir Austen Chamberlain on this matter now——

Mr. Lees-Smith: That has been stated in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Muff: Is it not a fact that the Liberal party placed the payment of Members in their programme in 1906?

Sir E. Grigg: I do not see that that affects the argument. In any case we have now a splendid opportunity of overcoming both the objections which were so strongly felt by Parliament in 1911. We can vote this increase now and thereby absolve the next Parliament from taking a course which I think it is undesirable for any Parliament to take; and we can also let the electorate have a chance of expressing some opinion on this matter, and objecting to it if they desire to do so. I have attempted to find out what is the opinion on this matter in my own constituency. It is a large constituency, larger than that of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). Its electorate at present is 106,000. It contains every kind of type; it is a microcosm of the country. I asked a friend of mine to make inquiries, without suggesting views at all. The main conclusion is complete indifference. That rather frightens me. There ought not to be so much indifference. It frightens me, especially

as it is reflected in the poll of all parties in recent by-elections. I do not think that that is at all a healthy feature in the present state of our political life. Among people who have any kind of opinion, opinion appeared to break pretty evenly. Some said that it was all right, and some said that it was all wrong. The objections made were not to the increase but to our voting it for this Parliament. There was a retired military officer——

Mr. J. Griffiths: With a pension?

Sir E. Grigg: No doubt. He
Feels that a politician, if a good man, deserves£1,000 a year, but the numbers in the House could be considerably reduced, at least by half. The Conservative party would strongly have opposed the present proposition had it been introduced by a Socialist majority. Suspects leaders of Conservative and Labour parties have got their heads together and come to present arrangement.
Then there was a draper, a Liberal:
Thinks£400 a year is quite sufficient, but in any case Parliament has no right to vote itself an increase.
The next was a boot and shoe salesman:
Does not think a 5o per cent. increase justified. Would agree to£500 a year, but thinks Parliament should not vote it to itself.
An agricultural labourer:
Thinks the£600 quite reasonable, but thinks Parliament should not vote it to itself.
An omnibus inspector:
Members were elected to Parliament with their eyes open to the fact that they would be there for five years at£400 a year. They made the bargain with the electors and should stick to it.
Then there was the squire:
Agrees with proposed increase, but present Parliament should not vote it to itself.
That seems to be a fairly wide cross section of English opinion. The objection is mostly not to the increase but to Parliament putting its own hand for its own advantage into the taxpayer's pocket. I wish the Government would accept the Amendment. There is no date mentioned in the Motion itself, and I think that it might be desirable to add a date to it.
I would make this appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Would he and the Prime Minister not consider in any case leaving this to an open vote of the House? I can understand the objection to taking off the Whips in almost every question which affects this Parliament, especially on questions which are matters of Government


policy. But this is not a subject on which supporters of the Government should be asked to take any special responsibility. If responsibility is taken, it should be taken by the House as a whole in the judgment and on the conscience of individual Members. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) when he said that Parliament was a body corporate in matters of this kind, and because of that we do not want to have in this particular decision the intervention of the Whips, who are the instruments and officers of a party machine and whose interference, I think, in a matter of this kind is improper. It is a direct responsibility which rests upon every individual Member.

Mr. McGovern: They keep the Whips on for the means test.

Sir E. Grigg: That is not a question which affects Parliament as a whole. I make that appeal, although I do not suppose that it will affect the result. I believe that there is a big majority which is quite prepared to take responsibilitw for passing this Motion. If that be the case, let it be shown to be the opinion of Parliament without pressure of any kind.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I make no apology for at once supporting the Government in the Motion which they have on the Order Paper. I almost feel that the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) feels so keenly on this matter that if he were a Member of the Government he would retire from it.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not think that personal arguments of that kind ought to be used in a matter of this sort.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member objects to my manner of putting the argument I readily withdraw. I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman, who, having expressed his profound sympathy with the proposal, then devises every argument he can to show why the increase ought not to be made. The arguments of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) were almost identical. He was overflowing with sympathy for those who deserved and needed this increase. Then he proceeded to give every reason he could think of why the increase ought not to be given. I do not think that the arguments so far

advanced have been so substantial as to move in any sense the case submitted by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) put up such a positive case that all those who have spoken against the Motion have been answered by him. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) tells the House that we cannot hope to spend ourselves into prosperity, and that if we want to restore prosperity we must be economical ourselves. I can see the right hon. Gentleman one day next week, when another£3,500,000 will be voted to a certain industry, complaining that the£3,500,000 was not£7,000,000, or even more. The right hon. Gentleman is an economist except when he wants money diverted into particular channels which suit his purpose, and I cannot appreciate his arguments.

Mr. Lambert: I have never advocated subsidies.

Mr. Williams: I honestly believe that the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is conscientiously opposed to any payment of Members. No Member who is living on very slender resources would expect the hon. Gentleman to argue otherwise than he did this afternoon. The right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) referred to the great Parliamentary days of the past. I want to ask in all sincerity whether the so-called great Parliamentary days of the past, when millions of families in this country could scarcely get butter for their bread, were really great. I should prefer the small Parliamentary days of to-day when there is an element of prosperity from Land's End to John o' Groats to the so-called great Parliamentary days of the past. Hon. Members must face up to the fact that we are constantly boasting of the fact that we are a democracy, and that above all things we want to deserve this democracy. If universal suffrage means anything, it implies that any man or woman with the ability, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, should be permitted to come to this House to represent a constituency if he or she can secure the maximum number of votes. If we are not going to make it possible for a person of requisite ability to fulfil the functions assigned to him or her by a constituency, then democracy is cheated and hon. Members must fall up to this question from that point of view.
But whether the case be argued from the point of view of the cost of living, or the increase of the amount of work, or from the point of view of independence, I think that the case for the Motion is almost unanswerable. It is obvious that the cost of living is such that it has made a material difference to the Member of this House who has no other income than that derived from the Treasury, and every decent-minded Member of this House is bound to appreciate that if a Member is to fulfil the functions for which he or she was elected, there must, of necessity, be an improvement on the present salary. The changes since 1911 have been referred to. I can remember that in 1922 when I first ca me here the cry from all industrialists in all parts of the House was, "Hands off industry." Since 1922 Parliament has had its hands on every industry. We have had import duties, subsidies, quotas, Government control, voluntary agreements and trade agreements and every industry—cotton, coal, steel, shipbuilding and agriculture—has been debated on the Floor of this House.
The amount of increased work, increased correspondence, increased interviews and deputations in which hon. Members have been involved has been enormous since 1922. As the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said, all our social legislation has been produced since 1911—old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, ex-servicemen pensions, national health insurance, unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance and so forth. Every Member must know that the amount of correspondence in 1937 is perhaps ten times what it was back in 1911, with this difference, as the late Prime Minister truly recognised before he left the House, that instead of the one letter reaching a Member of Parliament some 26 years since, which was never replied to, the ten letters that are received to-day must be answered post haste because, as the late Prime Minister said, there is a more intense political consciousness in all parts of the country to-day than there has been at any period in the history of the country.
Then we are confronted with the housing problem, problems affecting rates, problems affecting distressed areas, all causing additional work to the average Member, and for that reason, if it is the desire of the House that Members should give all their time—because membership

of this House is to-day a full-time job—I do not see how they can escape the financial responsibility. It has been said that it is a very delicate question to deal with one's own salary. I represent approximately 68,000 electors. At my first election in 1922 there were 32,000. They have more than doubled in the intervening 15 years. I would not say that the work has doubled during the same period, but if those 68,000 electors, some 33,000 of whom voted for me at the last election, feel that, with all the obligations upon a Member of Parliament, their representative is worth no more than£400 per annum, I shall have no objection to retiring at the next Parliamentary election. It may very well be that my valuation of my own services is infinitely greater than that of anyone else, but if I cart speak for other Members, if they are prepared to fulfil the obligations for which, they were elected, I am convinced that no business man would attempt to pay a salary less than that referred to in the Motion. A first-rate clerk in a second-rate firm will get more than£400 per annum.
I do not think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could stand up and justify the salary now paid if Members are expected to fulfil their duties. We appoint B.B.C. Governors in a part-time job and pay them£750 per annum. They may hold directorships in any number of other companies. We appoint part-time governors of the Electricity Board, at nearly double the salary of a Member of Parliament, and they can have half a dozen other appointments, and there is no complaint. We give salaries to Commissioners—the Tariff Advisory Commission, the Unemployment Assistance Board and all the rest—far greater than is given to a Member of Parliament. This Motion is long overdue. I am convinced that it will not tend to destroy the dignity of this House or to deteriorate its membership. Rather do I feel that it is calculated to encourage perhaps a better type of Member for, whatever we think of the Mother, of Parliaments in 1937, it certainly has become a definite legislative workshop. It is no longer a playground for the very rich or the less rich. It is a human institution ministering more to the needs of the millions than ever before, and if you obtain the right kind of personality, who is in daily touch with his constituency, and who is attempting to fulfil the mission for


which he was sent to this House, you must, of necessity, make it financially possible for him to carry out his duties.
I welcome the Prime Minister's suggestion that an inquiry should be instituted into the possibility of providing a pension scheme. I appreciate the actuarial difficulty, but, since civil servants, the police, teachers and all local government officers in a very short time will be in receipt of pensions, a case can be made out for Members of the House. I hope the Prime Minister will take the general feeling that has been expressed in all parts of the House as a desire that a committee should be set up to examine the whole problem, and if we can prevent one Member falling by the wayside after having served his constituency and his country as a Member of this House, any scheme of the kind will be more than justified. I hope, despite the negligible opposition that there has been to the Motion, it will meet with general approval, and I am convinced that no Member of the House need fear returning to his division and being confronted with the jeer that he has been doing something for himself of which he ought not to have been guilty. Rather do I think that our constituents will welcome the proposal and will know that it is going to help us to carry on with the good work, and to that extent will feel we have done that for which we were elected.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I wish I could feel the same confidence as the hon. Gentleman that our constituents will be satisfied with us for voting to ourselves this increase. I have been in my division in the last three week-ends and I have found the greatest difficulty in putting it across. Perhaps it is rather different for Members on this side, because I so often find it my duty to preach against undue demands for rises in wages and in favour of regulations in relation to unemployment assistance and pensions which may seem cheese-paring and, after doing that, I dread having it flung in my face that I have raised my own screw by 50 per cent. I appreciate that hon. Members opposite are not quite in that difficulty, because they do not believe in the importance of financial stringency as firmly as we do. They are all for increasing insurance, pensions and everything else

regardless of the cost. In that way they can much more easily justify increasing their salary. I seek a way out of this. I have been convinced that some hardship arises in the case of Members of the House who have no private means of their own. I seek a means of meeting this hardship without stirring up resentment in the country.
There are several expenses particular to Members of Parliament which could be very well met in kind. The first is postage. I see no great difficulty in making an allowance of 10s., or even£1 worth of stamped envelopes a week, and I do not think anyone would object to it. It seems most illogical that, when a constituent sends me a pension case, I should be allowed send it "O.H.M.S." to the Minister of Pensions but when I have his reply, I have to put a 1½d. stamp on before I can forward it to my constituent. The second point is food in the House. Someone said that more than 100 Members could not afford to dine in the House. I do not know if that is so. I do not want to make too much of it. Some people may prefer high tea, or may like to get out of the House for a change of atmosphere, or because the food is better and cheaper outside. I am quite prepared to admit that the food is very expensive here, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not consider making a grant towards providing a cheap House of Commons lunch and a cheap House of Commons dinner. I think the Government would be well advised to try to meet cases of hardship in this way rather than by an added cash payment.

Mr. Magnay: Would the hon. Member suggest that the Kitchen Committee should apply to the owners of proprietary articles to send their goods to the House out of charity?

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise with possibly more diffidence than I have ever felt before in taking part in a Debate in this House. My personal view is that I would gladly have a pension scheme with no increase of salary. But that is not the issue before the House. I was strongly critical when this matter was first raised, and, since it has been raised, I have debated over and over again the line that I should take. We have three alternatives—to support the Government, to


oppose it, or to abstain. It seems to me that it would be cowardly to abstain. The natural tendency of the small group to which I belong would be to oppose the Government. I take the view, after a great deal of consideration, that if I went into the Lobby against the Government on this occasion I ought not to take the increased salary. I hope hon. Members above the Gangway will not misunderstand me. It is the easiest thing for us to oppose the Government and to criticise the Labour party at the same time. There is always a tendency for a small group fighting for a place in the sun to do that kind of thing, but I feel that we have either to take the responsibility of voting for it or against it and, if we vote against it, we ought not to take the amount. I think I am the first to take part in this Debate who earns nothing beyond his Parliamentary salary. I entered the House 15 years ago and I have never augmented my salary, directly or indirectly, in any way. I have refused to write newspaper articles, and I have refused to take fees for speaking.
One of my reasons for supporting this is that I want to keep the House of Commons clean if I can. I know that men who are to go bad will go bad, but we ought to give them the opportunity to go straight. I have often felt that in some way the House was deteriorating when I have seen Members of Parliament —not that I blame them in any way—writing articles, praising a certain patent medicine, praising certain other articles. I knew they were doing it in order to add to their incomes and that they were using their House of Commons membership for that purpose, and I say that it would be much better for the House of Commons to grant them a decent increase of pay. When I see Members hawking about for lecturing engagements, often not minding for whom they lecture or what the purpose of the lecture is, in this great attempt to augment their incomes, I say that, for the sake of the dignity of the House of Commons, it would be much better to grant them a proper increase of salary.
I want now to say a word or two in regard to the Amendment that has been moved. This Amendment, to my mind, is not the right course to take. The hon. Member who moved it said it would delay the decision, but we do riot really delay it by delaying it till next Parliament. We

are not passing a Bill to-day; it will be a Resolution only, and when the next Parliament meets that Resolution will have no effect, and Parliament would have to pass another Resolution. Who in this House thinks that when next we fight an election, which may be on the issue of war and peace in Europe, anybody will bother about this question? Why need we hand over our responsibility in this matter to men who will sit here two or three years afterwards? It is a funking of our public duty to postpone this decision. I represent in this House poverty in its worst form. If I vote for this Motion, the people in my constituency whom I know can say to me,"George, you voted for£200 extra for yourself," but if, instead of that, I put it off until next Parliament, all that I need say is that we decided that next Parliament should decide the question. The Amendment, to me, has no reality and does not meet the issue at all.
Now let me say a word or two to the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). To my mind he made the strongest case, because I was in doubt right up till the moment when he spoke as to how I should act in this matter. One passage from his speech more than any other convinced me that I ought to vote for this Motion, and that was when he said that since the payment of Members had come there had been the rise of another party; in other words, that before that date the wage-earning population were denied access here, and that since you have paid Members of Parliament that wage-earning population has come to be represented here. May I say to the Tories that I cannot understand them on this matter? Some 12 months ago I read a resolution passed at one of their conferences urging the need for Tory working men. I expect they were honest in passing that resolution, just as the Labour party are honest and just as we are honest in passing resolutions. What did that resolution that working men Tories should come in here mean? Such a Member would either have to be supported by the endowments of rich Tories or he would have to receive payment from the State. If he was supported by the endowments of rich Tories, he would be to that extent in the rich Tories' pockets.
I left my colleagues in the Labour party some time ago. I think I can impute to them honesty, and I hope that


they will concede the same to me. I had been in their party since I was a boy, and I was connected with it in every way. Let me say that I only have my income as a Member of Parliament, and I have a postage bill which I do not think anybody beats and few equal. Only the other clay the Income Tax people said, "We cannot understand your letters; there are so many of them." I replied, "Go to the Unemployment Assistance Board in Glasgow and ask them." I have been blessed, and I have lived on my£400, and lived not badly, and, if I may be frank, I have actually made a small saving. I have a home in Glasgow, I have a wife in Glasgow, and I have lived here and made a small saving, but, as I say, I have been blessed and have never been a day ill, and my wife has never been ill. I have not a child. If I had been laid up, I could not have done it, but I have not had a holiday for 14 years. Is it anything degrading that I should have an income that will enable me to live properly? I am a professional politician, and if every professional man in this country could do his work as cleanly, I hope he does it. At the time when I left my colleagues in the Labour party. if I had been a trade unionist receiving£200 a year extra, and had had a wife and children, should I have left them? I do not think I should; I think I should have stayed with them. My opinions would have gone with my£200 a year. Give Members another£200 a year, and it will make them more independent Members of Parliament.
I am not keen about voting for this. I would sooner dodge this issue, and I would rather that Parliament had not raised it. I was going on quietly in my own way. I am chairman of a union some of whose members have a better income than I have, but I make no account of that, and I do not make a grumble about it. But if a Judge asks for an increase of salary, I say that he knew what his salary was when he took the position, and a professor in a university asks for an increase, although he knew what his emoluments were when he entered that position. That applies to us all. The only thing that concerns me is this: that I shall be richer to-morrow if this Motion passes.£600 means to me dreams that I can hardly speak of in the way of wealth. Down in my division

there are people living in terrible poverty, but I know that few of them will grudge me an increase. I think their test of me is how I represent them. I hope that to-night the House of Commons will not stop in its work for the teeming people outside who are under-fed and under-clad, and that while we may grant£600 to Members of Parliament—and I shall vote for it—it will not stop any of us in our resolution and desire to see poverty abolished in this land.

7.41 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I think most Members of the House will have felt that among the most interesting and intrepid speeches this evening is the one to which we have just listened. I intervene for a few moments only because I think the case was stated completely by the Prime Minister when he opened the Debate, and because I know that in many parts of the House there are hon. Members who feel that this is an anxious decision that we have to take and who take the view that there are considerations which ought to be weighed, the full strength of which is still not quite determined. I was in the House of Commons in the year 1911, and I remember the Debate that then took place on this question of the payment of Members. I have refreshed my memory by reading it to-day, and I say quite emphatically that in 1911 there was a great question of principle which was being decided by the House of Commons of that day, a question on which there was a sharp difference of opinion, largely represented, though not wholly, by the difference between the two sides of the House. But I altogether deny that there is any question of principle raised to-day.
As regards the question of principle that was raised in 1911, no one can re-read the Debates at that time without seeing that very much of the argument that has been urged to-day, most forcibly and sincerely, by hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), or my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), or my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), was represented in the speeches made in opposition 26 years ago—just the same arguments, just the same fears, honestly entertained. But I think it useful to ask ourselves, Were the fears expressed 26


years ago justified? Is it true that the character of the House of Commons has been worsened? Is it true that the representative nature of our Parliament has been undermined? Is it true that the dignity of the House, the respect in which Parliament is held by the people, has really all been swept away by establishing the payment of Members? I say most confidently that it is not true, and I believe that on balance the really representative character of the House of Commons has been very greatly strengthened by that necessary change.
That being so, I would beg my hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken on this matter to reflect. I do not say this, as a matter of reproach to them. Let them look again at the Debates of 26 years ago, and I think they will find that the anxieties that were expressed in 1911, which some of them still most honestly entertain, were proved to be unfounded by the light of experience. There was another speech that was made in those Debates in 1911. I still have a faint recollection of it, and I have reread it this afternoon with a great deal of interest. It was a speech made from the Labour benches by a man who had only recently reached the House of Commons—the late Philip Snowden. His speech was made because the question was discussed then as to whether£400 a year was too much and as to whether£300 a year would not be the wiser figure to adopt. If any hon. Member will go to the Library and look at Philip Snowden's speech on that occasion, he cannot but be affected by what was then said by him. He gave the House of Commons then an account, intimate, quiet, unemotional, of his own difficulties in maintaining himself as a Member of Parliament, when there was no salary for Members as such, and when, as far as he was concerned, he had to rely on, I think it was,£200 a year granted to him by a trade union and such small additional income as he could secure. Philip Snowden then gave, in 1911, an account of his struggles, not expressed with any desire to gain sympathy, because he was quite prepared to go on without the salary if it was not forthcoming, and I deny that anybody can read that speech now without feeling how much good has been done by the decision that was taken 26 years ago.
If I may say so, I do not entirely agree with one observation of the hon. Member opposite when he contrasted payments made to Members with the great salaries which may be earned in various forms of public occupation. I do not think that is the standard that we ought to set up. It would be a good thing, if it was a practical thing, for nobody who served in Parliament to be paid anything at all, but it is not a practical thing, and if you insist upon that, not only, as it seems to me, are you drawing a distinction between the opportunities of one sort of person and another, which you have no right to do, but I believe you are depriving Parliament of contributions which Parliament cannot do without.
Another thing that has struck me in this Debate is that I really think that some hon. Members almost seem to forget the account which the Prime Minister gave of the detailed results of the confidential inquiry by Mr. Baldwin as he then was. Lord Baldwin was good enough to let me see these documents as a personal confidence, and, of course, as the Prime Minister said, they are confidential and there is no question at all of divulging them. But I can honestly say that until I had read them, I had never realised the extent of the difficulties of some of my colleagues in the House of Commons. Here this Session as it happens I have been taking part in a Committee upstairs on the Factories Bill week after week with hon. Members drawn from all parties, all working like good comrades and treating one another on terms of perfect equality. I did not realise that it might be that among those with whom I was working were some who were suffering from these handicaps which did not affect me. I therefore beg to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the beginning, that, having read those documents he was both surprised and distressed; that he found that some of our colleagues here who are not in possession of other means of sustenance were reduced to expedients entirely inappropriate to their work; that they were slowly wasting away in some cases their small savings, that the education of their children and food for themselves had to be stinted, and that some of them could not afford to do the service which we ought to do all the week in Parliament because it involved too great a strain on their finances.
I think that the whole House of Commons will give full weight to these considerations, and I hope that I do not do wrong when I say for myself, and, I think, for a good many Members of the House, that there is something tremendously galling and completely distressing in the feeling that you are working side by side with other colleagues quite equal in every respect, and that some of them have to put up with these strains and difficulties. I shall be very deeply comforted if we can do something by passing this Motion to make their position easier. When I think of that I must say to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise), who made a carefully phrased speech, that I feel that it is not sufficient to say, "Well, these are very sad cases, but it is better that we should suffer some considerable inconvenience than that we should increase this figure from£400 to£600." I do not think that that adequately expresses the degree of relief which it is in our power to confer.
Now I come to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), seconded by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). Generally speaking, I would agree that in these matters which have a certain invidious air, it is a great comfort to feel that one has made a statement of one's intentions before a General Election, so that one then has the satisfaction when the General Election is over to know that the country has supported one's proposals. Though I know it is a case of conscience on the part of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, it does not seem to me that their remedy is a practical one. They say, "We are in favour of increasing the salary, but we do not want to do it now. We want to provide that it shall take place only after the General Election." Does anyone really suppose that a General Election is going to be fought on things of that sort? In 1911 the matter had been mentioned by Mr. Asquith before the General Election because at that time opinion was divided on the payment of Members, and it was very largely a division on party lines. There was great force and point in Mr. Asquith's claim, and he made plain what he and his friends were prepared to do. That situation cannot be reproduced to-day. If the topic were lightly to be raised, and

candidates were asked whether they were in favour of£600 a year or in favour of£400 a year, most of them would hold the same view. In that event how would a General Election help matters?

Sir W. Davison: Candidates are often asked for assurances at a General Election on all sorts of topics apart from general topics. A candidate might be asked, "Are you in favour of increasing Members' salaries?" and he would give a pledge one way or the other.

Sir J. Simon: I hope I make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that I perfectly appreciate that it would be very much simpler, certainly to some of us, to go to our constituencies and say, "This is what I am prepared to do." I would much prefer to do it myself. I cannot, however, really see that it should be a thing on which I must have a mandate. We have reached the conclusion—and I think the overwhelming majority of the House have reached the conclusion—that£400 is not enough, and that it should be raised to£600. Once we form that conclusion, and once we appreciate the urgency of the matter, I think that the vast majority of the House will take the view that the proposal should be carried out.

Sir E. Grigg: The right hon. Gentleman suggested just now that if this matter were to come up at the General Election no candidate could be found prepared to recommend the increase.

Hon. Members: No!

Sir J. Simon: What I meant to say was that it seems to me very probable that a candidate would say, "I am in favour of making the figure£600," and his opponent would get up and say, "And so am I." I feel myself that good sense in this matter is therefore this. The matter of principle whether or not Members should be paid, has been settled for a generation. We should most of us be entirely opposed to making some extravagant, large increase in order that Members might compare their salaries with those of very successful business or professional men. That is not at all what any of us wishes to do, but I believe that we have come generally to the conclusion that we must give an increase, and we should be wise to follow the figure arranged by Mr. Baldwin and the Prime Minister at£600.


I think that we all appreciate how very urgent the matter is now because of the position of some of our colleagues, and, therefore, the whole House is suffering until it puts this matter right. That being so, I hope that the House is going, by an overwhelming vote, to support this Motion.
I want to say a few words on the interesting subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the scheme of pensions. I am very happy that it is generally agreed that we should not try to follow out this scheme here by elaboration of the Motion or anything of that kind. At the moment I do not think that we ought to concern ourselves with what is the form of inquiry. We ought to regard ourselves as morally committed to an inquiry, and to a prompt inquiry, and, of course, before the form of inquiry is settled we shall do our best to ascertain views in all quarters of the House. I would only make this one contribution to the whole subject. It will obviously make a great deal of difference whether your pension scheme is going to lead to a pension being given to a recipient because he is entitled to it under the terms of the scheme, or whether the recipient is going to receive it because he is in some confidential way selected by a committee set up for the purpose. I should doubt very much whether it was possible to construct out of a system of deductions from Members' salaries, whether voluntary or compulsory, a scheme laying down the conditions under which Members of Parliament would be entitled to receive this or that amount as a right. I believe that probably there is much more hope in pursuing a scheme for pensions to be granted in necessitous cases. Such a scheme would be carried out under proper supervision, but none the less confidentially, by a very responsible committee, and the individuals selected for pensions would be chosen as seriously requiring the money. How this is to be done is entirely a matter for the future, and I only wish to state my own interest in this subject, and to say that I shall be most anxious to see the subject pursued to the end.
Lastly, let me observe as a general observation that I think it is impossible for us to realise the extent to which the real daily labour of Members of Parliament has increased compared with a generation or two ago. Mr. Gladstone

once declared that the private Member of Parliament in his early days was expected to make one speech between one General Election and the next. I remember that when, in 1911, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed payment of Members, he produced here at this Table the volumes containing the division lists in various periods of our history, and pointed out how, in years when the most serious legislation had been carried, the list was only a tiny, narrow volume completely different from the sort of record which takes place today. The majority of Members of Parliament were usually not here, and the reason why we have made Parliament a much more active place is that it is directly connected with questions touching the lives of the people. It is the effect of the extension of the franchise, that every man and woman has a perfect right to call upon his or her representative. If the subjects which we discuss affect the lives of ordinary people, it is quite certain that the Member of Parliament who does not attend will hear about it from his constituents. We have to add to that the enormously increased pace of the work here due to all sorts of modern contrivances, typewriters, telephones and all the rest of it, and I do not believe for a single moment that we are in the position of diving our hands into the public bag merely in order to provide ourselves or private Members with a slightly larger salary.
The proposal is made to-day on behalf of the former Prime Minister and the present one, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member below the Gangway that it is an occasion for some sort of go-as-you-please. It is a proposal, after full inquiry, made by the head of the Government and supported by the Government, and which, I hope, is going to be supported in the Lobby by the supporters of the Government as well as by hon. Members opposite. There is no reason why the Debate should necessarily stop because I have addressed the House, but if the House is so0020disposed, perhaps we might take the vote now.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I have been in the House all the time to-night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Hon. Members wish to divide, but I have stood up every time


trying to get an opportunity to speak, and when six Tories in succession have been selected I think it is about time that a protest was made. I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward, and it is time that hon. Members listened to an argument on the other side. I listened to the Prime Minister introducing this proposal to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament. The Government were not prepared to introduce this proposal until they had passed the proposals for the raising of Ministers' salaries and the raising of the salaries of judges. Then this proposition was brought in. We are told that the Prime Minister was distressed over the position of certain hard-hit Members of this House. Are we to tolerate the statement that the Prime Minister was very distressed at the stories of hardship and that that is the reason why this proposal has been brought forward? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeated that statement to-night.
How can we go before the people of the country in our constituencies, people who are living on the means test, and say that the Prime Minister has been very distressed at the stories he has heard about the hardships of Members of Parliament, and that that is the reason why our salaries have been increased? If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to come here brokenhearted and tell us that they are very distressed at the stories that have been told to them about the hardships that we suffer, what about the men who have to live on 10s. a week? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer listen to the pitiful story of the man who has to keep himself and his family on the unemployment allowance? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide.": Yes, divide, while people are starving outside. They can tell stories of real distress, but do you listen to them? No.
I am supporting this proposal because there are hon. Members on this side who

suffer great hardship and who have more responsibility than I have—domestic and other responsibilities. Knowing of the hardship of their lot I am prepared to vote for this Motion, but at the same time I am prepared to fight for the poor people outside. I can use this business to good purpose. I got£100 the other day from the "Catholic Herald." Seeing the purpose to which it has been put it is the best money the "Catholic Herald" ever spent, and the extra£200 that I shall get will be the best£200 that this House ever spent. It will encourage and assist me in the work that I am carrying on. I am always ready to take as much good English gold as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to supply.

There are Members of this House who are millionaires, and others who have lots of money, who oppose this Motion, and who tell us that high salaries do not provide high standards. Was there any mention of that when Ministers' salaries were being discussed and when Judges' salaries were being discussed? It applies only when it comes to a question of the salaries of Members of Parliament and assistance for the working classes, whom Members on this side mostly represent. I support the proposition but I do not thank the Government for it. The Government have not produced this for any special purpose of assisting the hard-hit Members on this side of the House. It is part of the trick they have played for getting through additional salaries of£100 per week for Ministers and for getting through increased salaries for Judges. If there was any genuine feeling in their hearts they would not hesitate to consider the cases of the people outside who are suffering real hardship and poverty, people on the means test, and people who have to live on 10s. a week.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 326.

Division No. 233.]
AYES.
[8.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Col. D. C (Hexham)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Storey, S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Colfox, Major W. P.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wise, A. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)



Davison, Sir W. H.
Nall, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Denman and Sir Edward Grigg.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Ellis, Sir G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Leonard, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Emery, J. F.
Leslie, J. R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Levy, T.


Adamson, W. M.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lewis, O.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Liddall, W. S.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fleming, E. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Frankel, D.
Lloyd, G. W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Logan, D. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Furness, S. N.
Lunn, W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gallacher, W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gardner, B. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Barnes, A. J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
McEntee, V. La T.


Barr, J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gledhill, G.
McGhee, H. G.


Batey, J.
Gluckstein, L. H.
McGovern, J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maclean, N.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gower, Sir R. V.
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Macquisten, F. A.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Magnay, T.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Blaker, Sir R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Mathers, G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maxton, J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Groves, T. E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Broad, F. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Messer, F.


Bromfield, W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Milner, Major J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hannah, I. C.
Montague, F.


Buchanan, G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Burke, W. A.
Harbord, A.
Morgan, R. H.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Harvey, Sir G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cape, T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muff, G.


Cary, R. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cassells, T.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Munro, P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Bushan.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hepworth, J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Charleton, H. C.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Chater, D.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Oliver, G. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Holdsworth, H.
Paling, W.


Cooks, F. S.
Hollins, A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Holmes, J. S.
Parkinson, J. A.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hopkin, D.
Peat, C. U.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hopkinson, A.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hunter, T.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Critchley, A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Price, M. P.


Crooke, J. S.
Jagger, J.
Pritt, D. N.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Radford, E. A.


Dalton, H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
John, W.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ramsbotham, H.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Dawson, Sir P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Day, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


De Chair, S. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dobbie, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Renter, J. R.


Doland, G. F.
Kirby, B. V.
Richards. R. (Wrexham)


Donner, P. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Ridley, G.


Drewe, C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Riley, B.


Dunglass, Lord
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Ritson, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Roberts. Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Leach, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Ede, J. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Rowlands, G.







Rowson, G.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spens, W. P.
Watson, W. McL.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Watt, G. S. H.


Salmon, Sir I.
Stephen, C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Stewart, J, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Welsh, J. C.


Sanders, W. S.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Westwood, J.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
White, H. Graham


Sandys, E. D.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Scott, Lord William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Sexton, T. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shinwell, E.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Short, A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Silkin, L.
Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Silverman, S. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Thorne, W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Thurtle, E.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Tinker, J. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Viant, S. P.



Somerset, T.
Wakefield, W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Walkden, A. G.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Sorensen, R. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Dugdale,

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 325; Noes, 17.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[8.16 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (Enburgh, W.)
Graham, D, M. (Hamilton)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Adamson, W. M.
Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr, P. G.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Critchley, A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Crooke, J. S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Crossley, A. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Groves, T. E.


Apsley, Lord
Daggar, G.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dalton, H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Guy, J. C. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hannah, I. C.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dawson, Sir P.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Harbord, A.


Barr, J.
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Batey, J.
Dobbie, W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Doland, G. F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Donner, P. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bellenger, F. J.
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buehan.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hepworth, J.


Blaker, Sir R.
Eckersley, P. T.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ede, J. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Boulton, W. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holdsworth, H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ellis, Sir G.
Hollins, A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Holmes, J. S.


Broad, F. A.
Emery, J. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Bromfield, W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hopkin, D.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hopkinson, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Buchanan, G.
Fleming, E. L.
Hunter, T.


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Foot, D. M.
Jagger, J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Frankel, D.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Cary, R. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gallacher, W.
Joel, D. J. B.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gardner, B. W.
John, W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Charleton, H. C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Chater, D.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Nw'gt'n)


Cluse, W. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Gledhill, G.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Keeling, E. H.




Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Kirby, B. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, G. H.
Somerset, T.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Paling, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Lawson, J. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Leach, W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Leckie, J. A.
Peake, O.
Spens, W. P.


Lee, F.
Peat, C. U.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stephen, C.


Leonard, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Leslie, J. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Levy, T.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Storey, S.


Lewie, O.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Liddall, W. S.
Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Little, Sir E. Graham.
Pritt, D. N.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Procter, Major H. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Lloyd, G. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.


Logan, D. G.
Radford, E. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lunn, W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thorne, W.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Thurtle, E.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tinker, J. J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


McEntee, V. La T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Remer, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


McGhee, H. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wakefield, W. W.


McGovern, J.
Ridley, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Riley, B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Maclean, N.
Ritson, J.
Warrender, Sir V.


MacNeill, Weir, L.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Macquisten, F. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Watson, W. McL.


Magnay, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, G. S. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rowlands, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Marshall, F.
Rowson, G.
Westwood, J.


Mathers, G.
Russell, Sir Alexander
White, H. Graham


Maxton, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Messer, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Milner, Major J.
Sandys, E. D.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Montague, F.
Scolt, Lord William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Morgan, R. H.
Sexton. T. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Shinwell, E.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Short, A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Silkin, L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Muff, G.
Silverman, S. S.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Munro, P.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)



Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees.- (K'ly)
Dugdale.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Blair, Sir R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)



Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Nail, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Colfox, Major W. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Mr. M. Beaumont and Mr. Wise.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)



Bill read a Second time.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the rate at which salaries are payable to Members

of this House should be increased to six hundred pounds a year.

Orders of the Day — FACTORIES BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

8.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
When I went to the Home Office and I saw this volume that is known as the Factories Bill, my heart failed, my face sank, and for days on end I sat with a wet towel around my head trying to find my way through the maze of its intricacies. At the end of it all, I wondered how much I really knew about the details of the Bill. But when I came to this House and heard the discussion on the Report stage, I own that I did take heart of grace, and I began to be somewhat encouraged. I felt, first of all, that the foundations had been very efficiently laid by my distinguished predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I felt that a great measure of good will had grown up in the course of the discussions, both in this House and in the Committee upstairs, and I thank hon. Members opposite for their share in creating the atmosphere that was created. I felt also that whatever might be my own ignorance and deficiencies, I had in my hon. Friend the Tinder-Secretary of State, a veritable Encyclopaedia Britannica in his knowledge of the Bill, and although it is unusual and generally improper for one Minister to throw bouquets at another, perhaps the House will allow me, in the peculiar circumstances in which I found myself, to say how deeply indebted I was to him for his very able help in the course of the discussions.
I should be very badly repaying this debt of gratitude that I owe to so many hon. Members who were very kind to me —perhaps that is always so for a new boy at the beginning of the first term, at any rate, for a few weeks, but they were very kind to me—if I added another long speech to the many speeches that have been made in the course of these discussions. I find that no less than 1,500 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT have been filled with the discussions on the Bill, and far be it from me to add many more columns to this very great number.

I think, however, the House would wish me, in a very few sentences, to summarise the scope of the Bill as it is to-day when, as we hope, it is on the point of going to another place, and to draw the attention not only of hon. Members but of the general public outside to the changes that are being made in our factories law and to the improvements that have been made in the Bill since it was introduced.
First of all, let me remind hon. Members that this Bill is a Factories Bill, bringing within its scope 6,000,000 workers employed in 250,000 undertakings of all sizes and descriptions. Being a Factories Bill, it deals with the health, the safety and the welfare of this great and diverse body of workers. In particular it offers protection to women and youthful workers who particularly need it. It is worth remembering the limitations of a Factories Bill for it seemed to me at times during our discussions that some hon. Members were inclined to regard it as a Bill covering the whole fields of Education Acts and Hours Conventions. In those other fields I do not wish to prejudge the issues. All I wish to say is that if a Factories Bill were to deal with them, it would run into 300 Clauses instead of 150, and probably would never find sufficient time to pass the House of Commons.
Secondly, the Bill sets a minimum standard. It does not impose an ideal and I hope that many employers will go beyond the standard which we are setting in it. It is, however, necessary, if there is not to be a great dislocation of industry, to remember that we are dealing with all kinds and conditions of factories and workshops and that while we are determined to proceed with resolution, we must also take account of the facts and deal with them in a practical and sensible manner. It would be a foolish policy if in our attempt to improve conditions of employment, we destroyed the very opportunities of employment. This is the reason why we have not gone further in certain directions and why we have, within our general standards, retained a certain elasticity in administration, but an elasticity, I would remind the House, that can be used in both directions.
Thirdly, the Bill definitely raises the general standards all round and in certain respects makes improvements that will prove of great importance in the future. Let me remind the House of certain of


these improvements. First, the provisions for the cleanliness of the workers and the cleanliness of the buildings are being greatly strengthened and extended. Let me make a confession. I did not in the least resent the attitude of the House when they preferred their conception of the drafting of a Clause on washing facilities, to our own. I think myself if we had had more time—and we were very much pressed for time—I might have introduced that Clause in a somewhat different form but, be that as it may, I was glad to see the House taking an interest in a question of this kind and having a definite view of its own as to how to deal with it.
Then, overcrowding is being progressively reduced. Fresh air must henceforth be circulated in every workroom. For the first time in our factories legislation, sufficient and suitable lighting must be secured and maintained. This is an improvement of great importance. Very important also is the new provision under which there is to be medical supervision of factory workers in cases of industrial illness, and in particular where there may be risk of injury to the health of young persons. As to the safety of workers, for the first time in our history, all new machinery must, when sold or hired, comply with certain safety requirements. As regards old machinery many improvements are being made for fencing it and ensuring proper precautions. There is also the important provision, proposed in the Standing Committee, it is worth noting, by an employer, that young persons are not to work dangerous machines unless they have been fully instructed as to the dangers and unless they are sufficiently trained and adequately supervised. Many new precautions are being taken against fire risks, such for instance as the provision which extends the need for means of escape to the smaller factories. As to welfare, the Bill greatly widens the scope of former Acts and applies certain welfare provisions generally instead of restricting them to special factories and special classes of factories.
Next I come to the very important question of hours. I note the fact that while the original Bill made substantial improvements in the existing position, further improvements of great importance have been introduced into it since the

Second Reading. The statutory hours for women and for young persons between 16 and 18 will be reduced from 60 to 48 a week and the hours of young persons between 14 and 16, subject to certain carefully-guarded exemptions, will be reduced to 44. Moreover in the case of women and young persons between 16 and 18 overtime will be greatly reduced. Speaking generally, the maximum of 600 hours a year will be reduced to 100 hours a year. Overtime in future will be restricted to certain weeks in the year and in order that it may be more effectively checked, it will be counted for the factory as a whole instead of for the individual, and as to young persons between 14 and 16 there will be no overtime at all. Women and young persons, too, will henceforth be assured of their Saturday half-holiday, as their work will stop at 1 p.m. instead of 4 p.m.
These are very great improvements, not indeed so great as all hon. Gentlemen would wish but none the less very considerable advances on the present position. When all these changes are taken into account and when the complexities of industry are remembered, I believe that the Bill will come to be regarded in future as a great measure of social reform. But great as are these individual improvements, I believe myself that the greatest advance in the future will be due to the concentration of public opinion upon these questions as a result of our discussions. I was much struck by the series of interesting discussions which took place on the Report stage, and in particular, if I may mention two of them, those upon accidents and upon the employment of juveniles. I hope that great good has been done by the concentration of the attention of this House—and as a result, the attention of the country—upon those very urgent questions. I want to see a much more alert public opinion upon both those questions. From what little knowledge I have been able to gain about accidents, I think one of the most urgent needs is that the public generally should pay more attention to them, should be less careless about them and should take more reasonable precautions.
I should almost like to see compulsory attendance at the Industrial Museum, not only of employers but of householders as well. I was very much struck, on a visit to the museum


the other day, by the extent to which safety appliances have been developed and how cheap in price many of them are. I take this opportunity of drawing the attention of employers, of householders and of all ordinary citizens to this museum. I think it suffers from a rather dismal name. I am inclined to think it would be better to call it the "Safety First" exhibition or some such name. Whatever it may be called, I should like to see the public generally realise what is being done and how much more might he done if employers and householders made use of the facilities that are now at their disposal.
So also with the great problem of juvenile labour. So far from resenting the discussions that took place upon the conditions of juvenile labour, I welcome them. Even though I was not able to agree with the views of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, I was glad to have attention concentrated upon these problems. They raise all sorts of issues, and neither to-day nor to-morrow can we find any immutable solution of them. Whatever may or may not be in this Bill, the situation is constantly changing, and in the future employers will have to depend less and less upon juvenile labour. I believe that one of the results of this Bill will be to force attention upon these problems and to make employers realise that they will have to adjust the conditions of their factories to a situation that is obviously changing now and is going to change still more when this Bill comes into operation, and when, in two years' time, the Education Act also comes into operation. For these reasons I was very glad to take part in the discussions upon these important issues.
There was another reason why I was very much interested while I listened to the course of the debates. It seemed to me that what we were doing was very typical of British history. We were proceeding step by step, we were basing our advance not so much upon theory as upon actual experience. We were building stage by stage upon past experience, and we were attempting to carry out great changes, not by revolutionary methods, but by as much agreement as we could obtain, whether between hon. Members in the House or between employers and labour organisations outside. It seems to me that in the course we were follow-

ing we were adopting a typically British method. There was another very interesting feature about this Bill. I read as far as I could the history of factory legislation. I expect that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House know that history very well. If they do, I think they will agree with me when I say that there is no more interesting chapter in the whole of British history than that of factory legislation during the last century.
Like many developments in British history, it began on a very small scale. It began rather more than 100 years ago with four inspectors—the sum total of the number of men actually engaged in this branch of work. They were the first inspectors of any service in British history. What a progeny those four men now have! These men, whose names are now practically unknown, started upon this work in the face of every kind of difficulty—difficulty with the Government, with employers and with parents —and yet they forced their way forward and started this great chapter of social reform. They started, incidentally, not only the great movement of factory reform, but the whole movement of public education. It was from the work of these four factory inspectors that emerged the movement of public education, for the first schools were factory schools. This past history very much interested me. It gave me satisfaction that in the discussions upon the Report stage we were building this great structure upon the sure foundation that was set more than a century ago by these four almost unknown individuals. What more typical incident could there be in British history?
Lastly, I am glad to share in the passage of this Bill, for, being a very old Member of this House and having a great respect and affection for Parliamentary institutions, I am delighted to see the Parliamentary system showing itself at its best. I am delighted to see the British Parliament still able to face a great Measure of this kind, filled with every intricacy, and deal with it impartially, each side of the House trying to make the Bill better and making a common effort to turn it into a great and useful Measure for the future. I am delighted to see the Parliamentary system able to face free discussion and long deliberation, and yet, without undue delay, to pass a great Measure of this


kind on to the Statute Book. Let other countries note that we in our own way, proceeding upon the well trodden track of past experience, can pass into law these great Measures of social reform without any national dislocation, without the wizard's wand of any dictator, and that we are prepared to bring them to the Floor of this House to face free discussion and to pass them into law, as I hope we shall pass this Bill into law, without any undue delay. In this Bill we have seen the Parliamentary system working in its most efficient manner.
This is my final word: Let me assure hon. Members that when the Bill is passed it will be administered with the sympathy that the factory inspectors have always shown in the discharge of their duties. It will be administered, perhaps, with even greater efficiency in the future, for we shall certainly have to extend substantially the number of the inspectors. Lastly, it will be administered by the Home Office with the settled conviction that it is a great and useful Measure, that it contains within its four corners the seeds of growth, and that the House desires it to be the instrument for generally raising the standard of the conditions in factories and workshops. So far as administration is concerned, we in the Home Office intend, in the letter and the spirit, to carry out what I believe to be the general wish of all sections of the House.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman has set us a very good example in brevity, and I shall seek to follow him in that direction. Brief though he has been, he has not in any way lessened the importance of his statement respecting the provisions of the Bill. I think he is fortunate to be associated with the Measure, especially as he came to it when all the complex and difficult work had been accomplished, though I think he stayed the course manfully during the Report stage and showed evidence of his qualities as a Parliamentarian. For those of us who have been active on this Bill from the beginning, the long road of travail is ended. The time for criticism, complaint and amendment is over, and we must take the Bill as we find it, and if the provisions are not as far-reaching and as progressive as we should have liked, nevertheless I think

we can jointly congratulate ourselves on having improved the Measure very considerably. I think the compliments which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the Opposition were well deserved. I found the Committee stage most interesting and instructive, and I was fascinated at times by the wealth of knowledge and the capacity for detail of the Members who sat day after day discussing this complex and intricate Measure.
I think we should also acknowledge our gratitude to the then Home Secretary and to the Under-Secretary. Both of them had a fine grasp of the issues and, I believe, generally speaking, sought to meet us on technical matters, though upon the wider issues of hours we did not meet with any measure of success. There were times when we drove those two Ministers into the corner, and when they had to fight back, and they fought back with some capacity, cruelly at times. Whenever they were in a tight corner they said, "Ah well, we must remind hon. Members that this did not appear—or it did appear—in the Bill of 1924." I hope I have heard the last of that Bill, but I will make this observation: Had there been the same measure of co-operation and good will in the House in 1924 as has been shown in connection with this Bill, the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, to adults and young people would have been considerably less, in the intervening years. It would be interesting to compute, if we could do it, how many of those accidents would have been avoided had there been a little willingness on the part of that Parliament to consider and pass that Measure. At the same time we must pay a compliment to the Home Office advisers and officials, who have had a very stiff and arduous task, but who have been ever ready to offer their advice and services to us, the Opposition, as well as to the Government.
I do not think anybody will deny—I shall not—that the Bill is a great advance on the provisions of the Act of 1901. New law is being created and many bad employers will in future have to toe the line with good employers. Running through our Debates on this Bill was the idea that we were legislating for another 25 or 30 years. I do not share that view. I hope the passion for social justice will expand more rapidly than it has done in 1.he past. I hope we shall not have to wait so long for justice to be done, that


the public conscience will be more easily aroused than during the last 37 years. I hope that employers and workpeople, the public and, indeed, this House, will be more ready to translate the hopes and the ambitions of the people into legislation than they have hitherto shown themselves to be.
The Government have been accused of timidity. We must admit that this Bill is a compromise. It is the result of consultations with outside people, it was brought to the House as a compromise Measure, and we could have wished that there might have been a greater measure of public spirit displayed in some quarters. The Bill affects some 6,000,000 work-people and some 350,000 factories. The anomaly respecting workshops and factories has been removed—a much-needed reform—and the provisions have been strengthened in connection with cleanliness, overcrowding, temperatures, ventilation, lighting, sanitary conveniences and so forth. There would appear to be ample powers for enforcement in the hands of district councils. If they fail, the Home Secretary can act. In connection with machinery, the safety provisions have been tightened and strengthened, and we have created new law in some respects. I particularly welcome the additions made with regard to hoists and lifts, and I have no doubt that when the Bill becomes operative, although that time is some way off, there will be a diminution in accidents to adults and to juveniles.
Turning to the question of the employment of women and young persons, on this side of the House we are disappointed. We should have liked a more progressive spirit to have animated the Bill, and to have been reflected in its phraseology. We have to admit that the working hours have been considerably reduced. The then Home Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that under the old law, in 51 weeks in any given year the workers worked 3,060 hours. Those hours have been reduced to 2,550, including the extra hour overtime allowed by the Measure. That is a step in the right direction for women and young persons. For the first time, the Bill legalises overtime, although we have no included any conditions governing what is to be paid for overtime. In connection with young children between the ages of 14 and 16, we welcome the proposal of 44 hours.

We had a great struggle upstairs in Committee, and I am grateful to every Member, no matter to which party he belongs, that stood manfully in that cause. We have a 44-hour week; we should have liked to see a 40-hour week with no overtime. When Parliament is dealing with issues which are so immense and important to the great mass of the people, it is a blot upon the Bill that we did not have courage to inaugurate something in the nature of a 40-hour week for adult labour, without loss of wages.
I am reaching my self-appointed time-limit, but there are two further things I would say. I welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Office propose to be sympathetic in their administration of the Bill. Much will, of course, depend upon the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. I have paid testimony on more than one occasion to the splendid work of the inspectorate; we shall look for an increase in the inspectorate. I hope that we shall not be satisfied with the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State when I raised this question in Committee, and that it will not be made a condition that every inspector must be university trained. I hope the Home Office will look for practical men and women, and for men and women with practical experience of workshop life. I do not say that their education is unimportant; they have to deal with employers and with more cultured workmen to-day than were to be found in my apprentice days. There is need for a measure of education and culture among these people, but there should not be a condition that university training is essential, if all the other things are present in the men and women who apply for these posts.
The Bill comes into operation on 1st July, 1938. No doubt many people have been following our Debates in Committee. The Press has given some show of publicity to our proceedings, and I would ask the Press of the country to give frequent publicity to the Clauses of the Bill between now and the operating date. There is much ignorance abroad respecting factory legislation. Employers and trade unions can do a great deal, but all the workers are not organised, and we must rely upon the Press for a good deal of publicity. The Bill, good, and improved as it has been in Committee, will


not occasion any distress to good employers, but it will occasion distress to bad employers. It will compel bad employers to come up to the standard of the good. From that point of view I welcome the Bill. I do not believe that monuments will be erected to commemorate its introduction, or the action of the Government although a few monuments might well be put up to commemorate the excellent work done by Members of the Committee. They worked long and hard to improve a Measure which we hope will ameliorate the lot of the workers and limit the rising accident rate of recent years.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: It seems a very long time, almost a lifetime, since the Bill received its Second Reading and we began our debates in Committee Room 10. I am sure that no Member of that Committee will forget Committee Room 10 and the weeks and months that we spent there, and as they will not forget it I am equally sure that they will not regret it. We are all fully conscious of the fact, and are entitled to take some pride in it, that Parliament has, in bringing the Bill to its present stage, done a good piece of work. The Bill comes from Committee in a form which, I believe, will make it easier to administer. It is extended in some directions, although in by no means all the directions which we should have liked to see. That is due to what the Home Secretary described as the working of the British Parliament at its best; it is due to the collaboration on the Committee, within the limits which were open to the different parties in co-operating and negotiating; but it was due even more, if I may say so without being guilty of anything approaching impertinence, to the very great, indeed the surprising amount of knowledge that was revealed in the Committee as the Bill progressed from Clause to Clause. There was hardly any point, however complex or intricate, on which there was not someone present who was able to make a contribution and show that he had practical knowledge of the working of the Measure. We welcome the new ground that is broken in the Bill, the increased provisions for lighting and sanitation, and the protective measures with regard to machinery; and I have no doubt that, when the Bill comes into operation, there will be a notable diminu-

tion in the number of accidents and a notable improvement in the health of the people employed in the factories.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) referred to the fact that there was an assumption running through our discussions that the interval between this Bill and further legislation was likely to be another 35 years. I do not share that view, and I hope that the period will not be so long. Conditions are changing very rapidly in industry, not only in this country but abroad, and it is necessary that we should keep our eyes open and see that our country, which always used to lead in matters of factory and industrial legislation, continues to keep pace with any improvements that may become available, not only here but abroad. I think it would be well that the work which Parliament has now done should be reviewed at more frequent intervals, so that these matters may receive even more meticulous consideration than they have received in the past. My right hon. Friend said that we were proceeding in the good old British manner, one step at a time, but, when we have intervals of 20 or 30 years between legislation on any particular subject, it is a leap that we must look forward to rather than a step. I am all in favour of a gradual process, but it must be steady, and not spasmodic. My right hon. Friend said we must be careful that, in making advances in these directions and trying to improve the conditions of employment, we do not at the same time destroy the means of employment. That is very true, but I do not think we are running any risk of destroying employment or doing anything detrimental to it in this Bill.
There are two facts which the Government have not, perhaps, sufficiently appreciated in considering the Measure. One is the great adaptability of industry to new conditions, provided that they are equally imposed over the whole field and there is no differentiation between different sets of manufacturers. Another is that a silent, but nevertheless effective aid to improvement in factory conditions is the selection that is now being made by the employés themselves. So long as employment remains at a reasonable level, the employer who keeps a dirty or ill-equipped factory, without adequate canteen arrangements and all the other matters which we have been discussing, is not going to get the employés; they will


go somewhere else; and there will be that incentive to him to bring his conditions up to date and reach the standard to which my right hon. Friend said he hoped manufacturers would rise.
The time has now gone by for detailed criticism, but some reference must be made to the amount of work that is left to administration. That, of course, is inevitable in applying a general Act of Parliament to such a complex and intricate business as industry is to-day, but there is one direction in which I hope particular administrative consideration may be given. Some doubt has been expressed in the course of our discussions, without any wash to derogate from the importance of the functions which district councils perform in our community, as to their suitability for dealing with this matter. Great factories are now springing up in districts where hitherto there has been no experience of legislation of this kind, and it may be that the local councils are not in every case suited, or have the necessary technical assistance to carry out all the functions which they will have to look after under the Bill. I would, therefore, express the hope that, in matters such as the provision of fire appliances and the like, the Home Office will proceed by regulations to state a standard of efficiency and practice which will counteract any tendency that there may be to inequalities and idiosyncracies in the practice of different councils.
Like the hon. Member for Doncaster, and others in all quarters of the House, I regret that the Home Secretary was not able to make this a distinguished Measure by laying it down clearly that henceforth children under 15 were not to be employed in factories. I think that that might have been done by arrangement and consultation with the Board of Education and everyone concerned. Clearly it was the wish of the education authorities throughout the country, of the local authorities, and of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I welcome the fact that the working hours of young persons have been reduced from 48 to 44, and that an inquiry will have to be held before any extension of them is to be allowed. I sincerely hope that the conditions laid down as the result of those inquiries, if and when they are held, will he strictly applied. I hope the House will forgive me if I refer for a moment to

the conditions. One is that the work is not likely to be injurious to the health of the young people employed in those factories. A condition of that kind is just a speculation in the well-being of those young people. Another condition is that the employment should be beneficial. I do not think that any industry has anything to lose by adopting provisions of this kind. Industry cannot lose, provided there is no discrimination, by anything that benefits the nation as a whole.
Whether my stay in Parliament is long or short, I shall look back with great pleasure to the proceedings of the Committee and to working there with my colleagues, and I shall especially remember the tact, courtesy and ability with which the Committee was led by the then Home Secretary and by the Under-Secretary, supported as they were by the technical advice of their Department. Although there is a good deal more that we should have liked to see done, I think the House may feel that Parliament has done a good piece of work, which will soon be reflected in improved conditions of health and freedom from accidents in the case of the 6,000,000 people who will be brought under the provisions of the Act.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I would like to be allowed to express my satisfaction at playing some small part in the passing of this great Measure both through Committee and through this House. I am proud to be a supporter of the Government which introduced this Measure, especially so because I represent in Parliament that part of Yorkshire which includes the borough of Todmorden, which was the birthplace and home of Mr. Fielden, then Member of Parliament for Oldham, who played such a large part in the first Factory Acts in this country over 100 years ago.
It is well to remember that this Bill is not only a great advance on the Act of 1901 but—I say with all courtesy—in many respects on the Bill drafted by the Socialist party in 1924, and although the Labour party, the Liberal party and indeed Members of all parties pressed in Committee for further reforms and advances, I would claim that this Measure is being passed by the consent of all. Nearly all the differences which were expressed in Committee and on Report were differences in method in


attaining the desired objective rather than differences in the objective itself. I believe that that will not be challenged in any part of the House. I would claim this Bill to be a charter for all the men and women working in the factories of our country. There are 7,000,000 of them, I believe. I know—at least I hope that I know—that the great majority of them are working under conditions as good as or indeed better than the conditions laid down in this Bill, and they have attained those conditions largely through their own exertions and their own organisation, and also through the enlightenment of a great body of the employers. To this great majority of the working men and women in our factories, this Bill gives legal sanction and enforcement to the conditions which they now enjoy so that they need never fear that in the future they will be denied them. To those who are not enjoying such standards I believe it is true to say that this Bill will come as little less than a godsend.
One has only to look through the headings of the different parts of the Bill—health, cleanliness, overcrowding, temperature, ventilation, drainage, sanitation, safety, welfare, special regulations and hours of employment for women and young persons—to realise that this Bill is one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of home social legislation which this House has undertaken for many years. And I think that it is well that in these days, when so much of our time is absorbed by foreign affairs, rearmament and all those great issues, we should demonstrate to the country that our party in particular and indeed the whole House are still mindful of the paramount importance of Disraeli's great principle, that is "continually to improve the conditions of the people of this country." This Bill will be widely welcomed as an earnest of that desire.
I would like to emphasise that this Bill gives very wide powers for the Home Secretary to improve and to make further advances on the conditions here laid down as general conditions and standards improved. I believe that this is a most important fact which is often overlooked. The "Times" in a recent leading article on the Bill emphasised the point. A great deal of the legislation in this Bill is to be by regulation. The success or failure of

this Bill and of the regulations will turn on the efficiency of the factory inspectors and the advice which they tender, and on the action which the Home Secretary of the day takes on the advice proffered. I would add my voice in urging the importance of an increase of the factory inspectorate and that care should be taken to see that the gentlemen occupying these important positions should be fit and proper persons to carry out the duties involved. The Home Secretary and the factory inspectors have the power in their hands to make this Measure a triumphant success. I am convinced that in the present Home Secretary, as indeed in the previous Home Secretary who did so much work on this Bill in Committee, we have a Minister to whom we may entrust this Bill with complete confidence that he will make of it what we all wish it to be. I should like also to pay my tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under-Secretary for the courtesy and the help which they gave to us in Committee, when we were on their side and occasionally when we were criticising them. I think that it would also be churlish to leave this Measure without a tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), who presided over the Committee with so much skill and distinction and who thereby earned the respect and affection of us all.

9.33 P.m.

Mr. Banfield: I think that as one who served on this Committee for so long and only missed one meeting—and that was when I was at a committee of inquiry —it might be fitting if I said a few words on this the Third Reading. I look on this Bill as something accomplished, something done. But someone once said—I think that it was an American poet—that the saddest words in the English language were "It might have been." I cannot help but think to-night of what this Bill might have been and what my own feelings might have been had this Bill contained some of the things which are unfortunately not in it. Members have expressed their satisfaction, as I do myself, at the improvements in this Measure. But surely we should expect improvements. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that this Bill is better than the Labour Bill of 1924.

Mr. McCorquodale: In many respects.

Mr. Banfield: Quite, but 13 years have gone by. Bless my life and soul, we have not stood still for 13 years. If there is one thing more than another which is evident it is that there is to-day a far wider public conscientiousness on these matters than ever before in the history of our people. The rapid introduction of more and more machinery, the ever increasing capacity for production, and the speeding up of industrial life in all directions, have created a new social conscience which is not content to stand by and allow little children to be exploited in this year as they have been exploited in the past. Tribute has been paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced the Bill, and to the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary is the most amiable young man I ever met in my life but, with all his amiability, I have never got anything out of him yet. If it is a tribute to say that he stuck to his guns, and smiled and smiled and smiled, and gave nothing away, I will add my tribute in that respect.
The Bill, after all, has been in the nature of a compromise from its very inception. It was necessary to prepare the way. Employers were consulted and trade unionists, including myself, were consulted before the Bill came here at all. I think with the Home Secretary that it is essentially British, because it is so essentially a Bill of compromise. The fundamental difference between our methods and those of Continental countries is this: Had this been a Bill, say, in the French Chamber, all the Socialist and Labour representatives would have declared, "We must have this in the Bill," and when the Government offered a compromise they would have said, "No, we must have this or nothing," and generally they would get nothing. I think the progress of the British trade union movement is due to the fact that it has been prepared to accept something on account, and to hope for better things in the days to come.
I accept the Bill as something on account. I cannot imagine for a moment that we are to wait 25 or 30 years for another Factories Bill. In some form or another the things that we have fought for and not obtained in this Bill must be placed upon the Statute Book within a comparatively few years. Nothing has so struck the imagination of Europe as the fundamental change in the relations

between capital and labour recently introduced by the French Government. When I have urged that certain things should be put into the Factories Bill, the Under-Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman has looked at me in a pitying way and said, "These European countries never carry out anything that they promise. We are the people to do that." There may be some truth in that. Some European countries may have been content to put legislation upon the Statute Book and let it stay there. But there is this to be said, that throughout the world to-day there is this growing feeling that young people must be protected, that the labour of women must be protected, because they are unable to protect themselves, that in an age of machinery long hours of labour are a disgrace to any trade and to any nation.
In this Bill we have introduced for the first time the very important point that workshops are to be classed as factories. An hon. Member has talked about the new factories in the new areas. Those are not the factories that we want to bother about. Modern factories are built on modern methods. The old ramshackle workshop is no longer looked upon as being a paying proposition by modern employers. We have brought under the Bill tens of thousands of small workshops, many of them of a very bad type. I talked the other day with an employer in my own industry. Although we differ, we are very good friends. I think it is some tribute to a trade union secretary who can say, "I can go and see any employer over and over again. He is always pleased to see me." We talked it over and I said, "You people do not know what the Factory Bill is doing to you. You have not quite grasped all that it means to so many of you who hitherto have carried on your business in such had places, so little regulated, with no air space, overcrowded by the people you have inside them." When the Home Office get down to the fact that control is absolutely essential if the Bill is to be a success, they must have enough inspectors to see that its provisions are properly carried out. It is easy to say that the majority of employers are good employers. There are some very good, but there are a lot of very bad, careless, apathetic and indifferent employers who, unless some compulsion is brought to bear upon them, will do nothing in the


future, as they have done nothing in the past, to make the conditions of their people as they ought to be.
An hon. Member said this was a workers' charter. I do not think we ought to use big words about it. It is a long way from being the charter that I should like to see it. It falls so far short of what it might have been. That is the saddening part about it. I have said over and over again: Why do we not make this a Bill which will long be remembered in industrial history? The right hon. Gentleman made allusion to the past history of factory legislation. I have studied it. It has been part of my job. I think the people who initiated factory legislation should go down as people bearing a great name in the history of the nation. They did it in the teeth of terrific opposition, in an age of prejudice, which was not confined to the employers but was as bad on the side of the workers. In the face of all the difficulties they initiated a system and to-day, in spite of the things that I should like to see, the fact remains that our factory legislation, and our inspectorships under factory legislation, is still by far the best of any European country. But it is because I want to see this nation hold the first place in this kind of legislation that I regret so much so many of the things that have not been done in this Bill. I know there is a very good answer to it. The fact that we are passing the Third Reading of a great Measure like this in an almost empty House shows that the majority of Members say, "What is on to-night? The Factories Bill. I am going home. I do not suppose there will be a Division." And away they go. But it is some tribute to us in this way. They feel that whatever has been done has been done with the consent of all parties in the House.
If there was one thing more than another that struck me while at work on the Bill in Committee it was the real desire on the part of practically every one to do the right thing as far as he saw it. The difference of opinion was that some of us thought the right thing was to go a lot farther than others thought, and they were not prepared to go as far as we were. But they were typical of that general consensus of opinion that in factory legislation this

country has always taken the lead and should continue to take the lead. The Home Office, so far as its official element is concerned, has always been looked upon by everybody who has taken an interest in these matters as a Department that wishes to see justice done between workmen and employers. It has always had a tradition of that kind behind it, which is a tremendous tribute, if I may say so, to its permanent officials, but I hope the Department will realise one thing.
There is at Geneva, in the International Labour Office, an organisation which is endeavouring, with some amount of success, to bring into line European countries which up till now have lagged so lamentably behind our own standards in these matters, and I hope the Department will realise that it is not quite sufficient in these days to act nationally in these matters. They must get an international spirit, and they must endeavour as far as possible to encourage those other nations in Europe which drag behind our conditions of labour, to come up to them. Believe me, the example of this country in labour conditions and what is said at the International Labour Conference at Geneva have a tremendous effect in other countries upon this class of legislation. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by bringing European countries up to our standards so far as factory conditions are concerned, and I hope the Home Office, al any rate, does pay some attention to international conventions which are passed. I do not want to refer to anything of a personal nature that I am interested in, but that was a convention, and I hope the Department will realise that international conventions should command, as far as is possible, the fullest support of the British Government and the Home Office.
I am pleased, and shall always be proud, to think of whatever little help I have given towards this Bill. It will remain with me as one of the brightest spots in my Parliamentary career. I shall think, at any rate, that I have tried to do something, and, if I failed, it was not my fault. There is some consolation, after all, in men having the consciousness of knowing that they have fought the good fight. If they lose, if they have not got their way, it still remains to them to say, "I have done


the best I could, and man can do no more." I hope and trust that the Home Office will realise that, great as this Measure is, there is still tremendous room for improvement, and I hope that within a comparatively short time, if it be necessary, as I believe it will be necessary, to bring in amending legislation, courage and determination will not be lacking among those responsible for Home Office affairs.

9.50 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: After the delightful speech, if I may say so, of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), I am glad to carry on from this side also a measure of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the present Home Secretary and Under-Secretary of State on the position which we are reaching in passing the Third Reading of this Bill. I have a strong feeling that it is necessary at this point, as the last opportunity, to suggest the point of view of the great public health service of this country with regard to the step that we are taking to-night. It is, I think, fairly well known in this House that the great public health service of medical officers of health, that has advanced so wonderfully in the last 40 or 50 years, has little part to play in this Measure of factory inspection and health in the factories, and it is a matter of great concern to medical officers of health that this most important section of our national health administration should be outside their domain. It has been natural enough that over and over again, in seeking to advance the national health, efforts should have been made and proposals put forward for uniting in one these great health services that are at present scattered between the Ministry of Health, the Board of Education, the Home Office, and other Departments of State. It was some 25 years ago that I myself read a paper at the Sanitary Congress suggesting that it should be considered whether these matters should be taken out of the separate administration of the Home Office and combined in a single Ministry of Health which we looked forward to creating.
The more one has seen of the way things have worked, the more one has recognised that advance in this country, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury has said, is not made by great radical reforms but by

compromises all the way through. It is made, not by any one unique system of administration, but by administration growing up from natural roots, which grow in shoots of one kind and another under different Departments in different directions, and our job is to make some kind of co-operation between the different factors that are all working in the same general direction. It is reassuring to realise the different attitude that is taken in the House of Commons at the present time by the parties as compared with that which was taken, say, 50 years ago.
During the greater part of the industrial revolution and during the time of great Victorian prosperity we had in this House very little representation of labour—we had no direct representation of labour—and we had on either side representation mainly of employers or landlords. As far as industry was concerned, it was the employer class alone that was represented. The contest then was only between those who were more advanced and those who were less advanced in humanity, and things were looked at largely as a matter of humanity, as to whether you should make this or that provision, as opposed to the question of economy. You had the great Whig politicians of that time inveterately opposed to advance in factory legislation, because, as Mr. John Bright said, it spelt ruin to industry and absolutely put the brake upon industrial private enterprise and originality. However, the party represented by the Conservatives and Unionists to-day were led into a different line, as has already been said, and generally on both sides of the House it has been gradually brought home that politics now is not simply a question of defence and justice, and the maintenance of private rights, which more or less comprised the whole of political questions in those days, but it has by degrees become a question of the strengthening of the whole nation in its individual power, physical, mental, and spiritual, and these matters have entered into our policy on both sides of the House, and particularly on that side of the House which, during the last 30 years or so, has come into prominence as the direct representative of the workers.
This has changed the whole fashion of politics, and we have now a strong section of our work—almost one-third of it


—entirely dedicated to the improvement of the individual conditions of the people which, however important the matter was thought to be by philanthropists and well-meaning persons in the days gone by, was not considered a part of policy as it is now recognised to be. More than that, it is considered to be a proper means of using great national resources which are open to us through the Parliamentary system. That being so, Members on both sides of the House join together in supporting measures of this sort, and we recognise that these things have to come by degrees. Those of us who have special knowledge of these matters know how to estimate the degree of advance that has been made. The degree of advance in this Pleasure is considerable, and yet it does not come up to the desires which many of us look forward to achieving in the future.
One of the most important provisions relating to health in the first part of the Measure is that of lighting. It is only in recent years that it has become recognised that eyesight is of imperative importance, especially to the workers. It depends very largely upon the conditions under which they work. The improvement of the lighting of factories is essentially an advance of great value in this Measure. There are also the new arrangements with regard to washing facilities for all workers, and that, too, is a great advance. Whereas under the original draft of the Bill, as in previous Measures, washing facilities were only considered necessary for the purpose of industry, now they are to be included in all factories and workshops as part of the decencies of human life. We have naturally all along wanted to secure greater co-operation between the local authorities and the factory inspectorate of the Home Office. Hitherto they have been to a large extent separate. The inspectorate of the Home Office have had little contact with local sanitary officers, who, on the other hand, have seldom met the inspectors of the Home Office, but in this Measure greater powers are given to district councils to help in the work in the factories.
A further advantage is that in working in conjunction with local education authorities, it will be possible to obtain access to the children in the schools, and I hope that the school inspection work

will result in children being helped to find proper vocations in factories. We have not a proper liaison in this Measure. More should be done in the future. On the subject of examining surgeons, I hope that the change of name will give a certain change in practice, and that more use will be made of those who have local knowledge of the children themselves. I want the inspection not simply to be an inspection of factories, but it should be, more and more, one to bring home to individuals that it is the desire to help them to adapt themselves to their work. The idea of having a local man pry into the factories is difficult of acceptance by the industrialists themselves; they prefer inspection from the Home Office. That is one of the main reasons why medical officers of health can never expect to take over the whole supervision of health measures, as is very often suggested by medical officers of health and other medical opinion.
There is to be an improvement as regards the hours of working, and it will be a great advantage to remove entirely the opportunity for overtime employment for women and young persons. This is all part and parcel of a very much wider question of general reform. I feel that a considerable measure of advance has been made in this consolidation and co-ordinating Bill. We have advanced, but it should be looked upon as a means of still further advance not in representing one side, party, or class, or section of industry, but as being altogether united in helping to bring about the general improvement of those employed in industry in mind, body and spirit.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I think I am the only Member who has spoken to-night and has not served on the Committee.

Hon. Members: No!

Sir F. Fremantle: I have not.

Mr. McEntee: In any case, the speakers who have taken part in the Debate up to now have all been complimenting each other on the very fine work which has been done in Committee. As one who has been outside the Committee but nevertheless interested in the work of the Committee, I think that these compliments are well deserved. I would like to pay a compliment to somebody to whom no compliment has been paid to-night, but


who deserves perhaps to be complimented more than any of those to whom compliments have been distributed. I mean that very large body of ordinary men and women in the trade unions particularly, and in other organisations also, who have been carrying on the agitation for this type of legislation for a great number of years. It is also part of our mental make-up in this country that organisations like that have to carry on agitations for a great number of years before this or any Government can be influenced to move. We are making a move forward. Everybody will congratulate the Government to that extent. Personally, I have had the experience of working in some of the worst factories and workships in the country, and I am able to visualise the factory of the past that I know and the factory of the future that I hope for, because I see in this Measure a step forward to the factory I hope for, and I am certainly prepared to give it my whole support. I hope that the agitation outside that has played a very large part in inducing the Government to introduce this legislation will not cease, but that those who think as I do that with all the good points that there are in the Bill, there are many better points that might have been in it, will not forget our agitation for those better points, and that we shall carry on with it until a more enlightened Labour Government in the near future introduces another Factories Bill.
There are one or two small yet important matters to which I should like to draw attention. In my experience in working in factories, I have found that the average man and woman—and I have worked in factories with both men and women—know very little about factory law. Putting regulations on the walls of factories for the inspection of the people working there is very often not enough. I have seen those printed factory regulations hung up in a prominent place but covered with dust from the factory until it has been impossible to read even the large wording on the top of the board on which they were hung. A little attention might be given to that matter. The Department might also give attention to the question of publicity in the factories among the workpeople and, as far as they can be reached, through the ture explaining the advantages of the new

trade unions. Why not issue some litera-Act and all the possibilities for improvement, not only enlightening the work-people in regard to the new advantages that are coming to them, but trying to induce them to take full advantage of them?
I do not think that we shall ever have a sufficient number of factory inspectors to cover all the factories adequately, but if in addition to the inspectors there could be publicity to enable the workpeople to understand what they ought to expect in the factories, and the means by which they can get it, a very big step forward would be taken which might very easily be of advantage to the Government by enabling them to do without as many inspectors as they otherwise might require.
I do not want to talk about 1924, which has been referred to several times. It is almost like asking what Gladstone said in 1867 to ask what the Labour Government did in 1924. That is not worth referring to. Let us consider the present and the future. Of the present, we say to the Government that they have done a good thing in bringing in this Bill. It might have been very much better, but such as it is we thank them for it, and we thank ourselves for inducing them to introduce it. But we are not going to cease our agitation for a very much better thing in the near future.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Wraģģ: As one of those Members who spent a considerable amount of time in the Committee discussing the Bill, I want to say a few words before it receives its Third Reading. It is a great tribute to this Government that they have brought forward this Measure, seeing that it is 30 years since the last Factory Act was passed. The hon. Member opposite has referred to 1924 as being something like old times. But there was a Labour Government in 1929–31, and I do not remember that it attempted to bring in a Factory Bill on the lines of this one. I should like to pay a tribute to this progressive Government. Some hon. Members opposite may say that it is reactionary. I have been described as one of the most reactionary supporters of the Government. I do not know why that should be, because I think my reputation as an employer of labour shows that for many years I have not been


reactionary. The hon. Members opposite always seem to be living in heaven and never come down to earth.
The most contradictory statements are made on the opposite side. We are told that the hours have been reduced in France to 40, and that in Russia—the country in which hon. Members opposite, I suppose, hope to spend their last days—a 35-hour week has been introduced; but we never hear those hon. Members saying what is paid to the workers for the hours they work. We do not hear them say what is paid in France for the much-vaunted 40-hour week. We do not hear them tell us that in many industries the 40-hour week does not apply. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) will tell us what the conditions are in France in the ceramic industry. Will he tell us whether the hours in the ceramic industry in France are greater than those in Stoke-on-Trent. The argument is that the hours have not been reduced sufficiently in this Bill, and Members of the Labour party have said that the hours might easily be reduced to 40 as in France or to 35 as in Russia, without reduction in wages. It is well known that in France for 40 hours the men are not being paid the same wages. There has been deflation in the currency and the cost of living has gone up tremendously. The working man in France is not as well off as the working man in this country. From the figures of the International Labour Office it is well known that the working man in Russia is absolutely in hell compared with the working man here.

Mr. Batey: What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. Wraģģ: It has a great deal to do with the Bill. The argument is that we should reduce the hours to 40 per week. On the Report stage of the Bill I heard it stated that we ought to reduce the hours of labour, because they have been reduced in Russia and France.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is saying a great deal about what ought to be in the Bill. He must confine himself on Third Reading to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Wraģģ: I bow to your Ruling, and I submit that what is in the Bill, the 48-hour week, is all that can possibly be afforded in this country, and all that can

be afforded by the employers of this country, if they are to pay the same wages as they have paid in the past. It is no good hon. Members stating that the same wages can be paid for much less hours. The reduction of hours in the Bill is considerable. Personally I could have wished that they had been reduced still further in the case of women. There is no doubt that many of the arguments used in the Committee were valid and that many employers of labour are exploiting women's labour. But I submit that the advance made by the Government in this Bill is the utmost that can be taken at the present time, and that before any further advance is made it will be necessary for hon. Members opposite to show that a further reduction of hours can take place with the same wages or even with increased wages. After all, the most important thing is that there shall be no reduction of wages, but rather an increase. Wages are far more important than a reduction of hours.

Mr. Kelly: Is it not a fact that in the hon. Member's own industry there has been a reduction of hours without any reduction of wages, and that his industry is more prosperous that it was when they worked a longer week?

Mr. Wraģģ: I am connected with many industries but the one industry to which the hon. Member refers may be at the moment more prosperous than it was two or three years ago but it is not as prosperous as it was 10 years ago. Of course there are shorter hours and we have paid increased wages, but these increased wages and shorter hours have meant that our export trade has gone down to less than half what it was in 1919. Hon. Members opposite lay far too much stress on the speeding up of industry. They say that it is a hardship for people to work so long in factories because the work of great machinery is so much more intense than it was in the past. I do not agree with that at all. In many factories you will find, in spite of improved machinery and improved methods, that the output per man is not as great as it was 50 years ago. I can give figures to prove this and to show that in the coal-mining industry 50 years ago more coal was produced.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is really getting a long way from the Bill.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not propose to detain the House. I recognise that this is the Third Reading and I do not propose to deal with what is not in the Bill because you may not be as tolerant to me as you have been to the hon. Member. Still, although the Bill does omit to do certain things which one would like to have seen in it, I am not so foolish as to say that it is not an improvement on the present position. As a matter of fact, what we are passing to-day is not so much a Bill as the carcase of a Bill. Unless the Home Secretary and his Department carry out the regulations under the Bill, the Bill might just as well never have been passed. Therefore, my first comment on the 13ill is that it will represent an improvement provided the Home Secretary uses his powers wisely and well.
My second comment is that the Bill will not be a success unless there is a complete overhaul of the inspectorate and a considerable increase in the number of inspectors. While paying a tribute to the factory staff which I have met for their courtesy and kindness, I think nevertheless that the inspectorate will have to be improved in many ways. My third comment is that, while very much depends upon the Home Secretary doing his job well and on the factory inspectors being efficient and carrying out their work diligently, we come back in the end to the organisation of the workers themselves. This Bill will be a success or failure according to how the workers organise themselves in their unions. I understand that a booklet explaining this Bill is to be published, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said he would consider any reasonable means of seeing that the Bill was given publicity. I do not deny that those things will be useful, but it will depend largely on the powers of trade union organisation as to whether there are improvements.
I will conclude by addressing one or two remarks to the Home Secretary. It is 36 years since the last Bill dealing with factories was passed, but I hope that the next Bill, or at least an amending Bill, will be brought forward before so long a period has passed. We are living in an age in which industry is changing very quickly, and even if it is not possible to have another Bill containing hundreds of clauses, I hope the Home Secretary will

not hesitate to amend any portion of this Bill from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman has great powers at the Home Office. He comes to it from a Service Department and from other Departments which were in a sense more spectacular, but at the Home Office he has the care of millions of people in his hands. At the Home Office he can make great social changes affecting the lives of the people of this country, and I hope that he will make his tenure of that office a noteworthy one and feel that he is doing work which is well worth doing.

10.24 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wriģht: As one who feels very proud of having taken even a very small part in the passage of this great Measure, I would like to say a few words on the Third Reading of the Bill. Many of us on all sides would have liked the Bill to have gone a good deal further, but we realise that it is a great step forward. We must remember that we are legislating for the bad employers, and we must all feel glad that we live in a country where it is not necessary to legislate for the good employer. It would be a dreadful thing for this country if our good employers were not always a great deal in advance of our legislation, and I suggest it is because they are a long way in front of our legislation, that employers, and the people of the country generally, have been prepared to receive this Bill in the spirit in which it has been received.
I regretted to hear during the discussions on the Bill the criticism that the shortening of hours, particularly for young people and women, might have a bad effect on our export trade. I think I am voicing the opinion, not only of a majority in this House but of a majority in the country when I say that it would be a sorry thing if the export trade of this great and wealthy country depended on the exploitation of the labour of women and young children. We must remember that this country is the most valuable market in the world to-day, and it is for our statesmen to find means of securing for us a full share of the export markets which will give satisfactory working conditions to our women and young people. We should not have to depend on exploiting them in order to maintain our export trade.
I wish to add my tribute to those which have already been paid to the late Home Secretary and to the Tinder-Secretary for the manner in which they conducted this Bill through the Committee stage. They made hon. Members on all sides feel that, even though many of us wanted the Bill to go further, we were taking part in passing a Bill which was a great step forward.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I was very much interested in the right hon. Gentleman's references to the history of factory legislation. I have made a study of that legislation for many years, and have found it a most entrancing study. One finds there a story of single-minded, determined and courageous effort, on the part of men like Lord Ashley and others, and what is not least interesting in it is the manner in which those who opposed early factory legislation came to learn by experience that they had been mistaken, and retracted what they had formerly said. For five years, from 1841 to 1846, Sir James Graham occupied the position now held by the right hon. Gentleman. On the occasion of the passing of the Ten Hours Bill in 1844 he took up a very strong attitude of opposition to it. He said the effect of a 10-hour day would be to reduce wages by 25 per cent. and to ruin the country. But in 1860, like Roebuck, he acknowledged his mistake and admitted that all the predictions which he had made about the Ten Hours Bill had been falsified. Speaking on the Bleach and Dye-works Bill in 1860 he said he had been mistaken in thinking that the Factory Act would be disastrous to trade, and he added:
On the contrary, it has contributed to the comfort and well-being of the working classes without materially injuring the masters. By the vote I shall give to-night I will endeavour to make some amends for the course I pursued in earlier life in opposing the Factory Bill.
It has been indicated by a good many references to-night to Bright and Disraeli, that the party opposite claim, in some measure, to have been the leaders in factory legislation. I think the truth is that both the great parties of the State had men who supported factory legislation and men who stoutly resisted it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) made some such references, and I think it would be well to get a proper balance in this

matter. Although it may seem a little academic, it will, I think, be for the wellbeing of the souls of those who hold these views. On the eve of the election of r841, Lord Ashley, afterwards Lord Shaftesbury, who had bitterly and justly criticised the Whig Government, wrote:
I desire, above all things, to carry my Factory Bill, and sure I am (tell it not in Gath!) that I have got more, and may get more, from the Whigs than I shall ever get from my own friends.
Reference has been made to Disraeli, and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) spoke of his great principle. Without going into that matter, I think it is right we should know how he stood on this question. He voted for both the Factory Act, 1844, and for the ten-hours Bill of 1847. At the same time Macaulay, Palmerston, Grey and Lord John Russell also voted for them. I must say as a tribute to Disraeli's memory that when in 1850 a compromise was made, which was endorsed even by Lord Ashley, which really meant going back to a 10½hours day, Disraeli made a notable and worthy protest against it. It is well known that the inspection of mines was thrown out in another place in the 1842 Act, but when it was reintroduced in 1850, Disraeli, on the Second Reading of the Inspection of Coal Mines Bill, said:
I have always protested against this interposition between labour and capital. I have had communications from several coalowners who have represented that this interference with their property will he seriously injurious, and I suggest that the Measure be postponed until next Session. It is a piece of hasty and ill-considered legislation.
I do not produce these quotations because we have a right to judge the men of a past generation by our own standards, but I think that a better balance should be maintained as to who were the real authors and advancers of factory legislation. While I wish other things had been included in this Bill, I believe that in the reduction of hours and other forward steps which have been taken industry will speedily accommodate itself to the new conditions. Ten years ago I was in Australia, and they were then contending before the Arbitration Court for a 44-hour week. History moves quickly, and what they were contending for then has now become almost out of date. Just before I was there the Court of Arbitration in Western Australia delivered a judgment on 8th March, 1926, granting


the 44-hour week to the Timber Yard, Saw Mills and Wood Workers' Employees Union. I will quote these words from one of the judges giving a judgment in favour of the 44-hour week:
There was no proof, and of argument there was only a repetition of the forebodings of disaster which have met each and every proposal for a reduction in hours from 72 per week downwards. Australia flourished and worked 48 hours per week for many years while the rest of the world worked 54 and 72 hours per week. Now the rest of the world had caught up to the 48-hour standard, and Australians are justified in believing that they can again lead the world with a 44-hour week to the advantage of all concerned.
I trust that in the matters dealt with in this Measure, and in the treatment of industrial diseases and otherwise, this country will fearlessly go forward leading the world, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) said, be an example to all other countries.

10.36 p.m.

Sir J. Haslam: I rise only to point out one or two things which have struck me during the discussions on this Bill. One point is that as the representative of, perhaps, the most industrialised town in the country, one in which most of the inhabitants expect to get their living in either a factory or a workshop, I have had very little correspondence from either the employers' side protesting against the Bill or from the operatives' side asking for it to be improved. The Home Office are to be congratulated on introducing a far reaching Measure of this description which has not raised violent opposition from the employers and yet at the same time will so much improve the condition of the workers that they are more or less satisfied with its provisions. It is a Bill which will affect between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 people in this country. In this House and in the Committee upstairs, where I attended, I think, every meeting, one found all the Members working to improve the Measure, instead of decrying it. Never before during my experience in this House have I ever known the time when it could be said of Members in this House or in the Committee upstairs
Then none was for a party:
Then all were for the State.
All the criticisms or suggestions put forward were offered with a view to strengthening the Bill. It was quite a new experience for me to find that there was no desire to water down the Measure,

but that the effort was to improve and strengthen it, and I am sure that will have its effect on the Home Office representatives in this House and also on the officials of the Home Office, who will realise that all parties in the House are anxious that our factory legislation shall be second to none in the world. Mention has also been made of the prospect of an increase in the number of inspectors. I say no word of criticism about that, but I would refer to a section of the community whom I have admired for many years in the quiet work they are doing, of which little is heard. I refer to the certifying surgeons, who go into the factories—and who will go into the workshops in future—and inspect and keep records of the children employed there. They have done a magnificent work behind the scenes, and they have had very little mention either in Committee or in this House, but before we finally pass the Bill I should like to say that I for one have noticed their work, and I hope the Home Office will encourage those certifying surgeons in the good work upon which they are engaged.
The Home Secretary mentioned the Industrial Diseases Exhibition in Horse-ferry Road, London, and wished that both employers and workers could see more of it. Although it might be a little expensive to do so, could the exhibition be moved to a place like Manchester, where millions of workpeople would have an opportunity of seeing it, or to Leeds? Gradually, in that way, those interested in the subject would have an opportunity of seeing the exhibition. The West Riding of Yorkshire, and Lancashire, are still the most industrial parts of the country, notwithstanding the changes which have taken place in and around London, and for the exhibition to remain in London all the time detracts a great deal from its usefulness.
I would add my testimony to the work of the then Home Secretary in introducing this Measure and carrying it through, with the able assistance of his Under-Secretary. Some of us were very nervous when we knew that a change was to take place in the personnel of the Home Office, but we were delighted to discover that a Minister who has been such a success in the various posts he has occupied was coming to it. If any section of the Government affects the lives of the majority of the people of this country, it is the


Home Office. We are delighted that the present occupants of those offices are the two enlightened Members who are on the Front Bench. I hope they will forgive my saying that in their presence.
As one representing a constituency in which most of the people have to get their livings in factories and workshops, I am pleased and proud that I have taken part in the discussions on the Bill, both in the House and in Committee. One of the pleasantest recollections I shall have of being a Member of this House is that I was able to play some part in putting this Measure upon the Statute Book. I am certain that, in the years to come, it will be looked back upon as a great move forward. It will not be the last of our political battles, but the battles in the future between political parties will be more of an economic character, and not as theoretical as they were 30 or 40 years ago. I am certain that it will not be another 36 years before we need fresh legislation to deal with factory conditions. Although this is a great step forward, no one can deny, and I do not think any one will wish to deny, that it does not go as far as some people would like; but that is typically British. Everybody including the Home Office and this House, is to be congratulated upon the Measure.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to offer one or two brief observations before we part with the Measure. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has raised what are very important issues from our point of view. It is easy to speak in this House as a trade union official who has conducted trade union negotiations at conferences, but it is not easy to do so when one is acting in a representative capacity inside the factory in situations where workmen are put to the test, and their livelihood is at stake all the time. I support the view put forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals that one of the most important factors is the need now for strong industrial organisation, in order that the working class of this country may receive the maximum benefit when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I am reminded of the very fine report that was published after the terrible disaster at Gresford. In that report the Chief Inspector of Mines said that more than ever he wanted to emphasise, from the point of view of safety, the need for the repre-

sentation of the workmen in the pit by trade union representatives; and, in order that the maximum amount of benefit may be obtained from this Bill when it becomes an Act, there is great need for industrial representation in the workshops.
I remember that when I was a boy the man that we were mostly afraid of was the policeman, but I have lived to see a big change in that regard. Coming down to this House through big industrial centres, one sees children looking up to the policeman with a smile as the man who will lead them safely across the road through the traffic. We have a long way to go before that condition of affairs is brought about as regards the factory inspectors. I would like to see the Home Office take into consultation the chief inspector and the factory inspectors throughout the country with a view to bringing about a change in their administration. I am not speaking critically of the factory inspectors, but, when an accident occurs in a factory, we find that the factory inspector goes direct to the manager. He is taken to the superintendent, and then to the departmental foreman, and proceeds to make an examination of the machine; but the ordinary workman is not taken into consultation at all. I would like to see the same spirit that has been brought into operation on the roads brought into operation also inside the factory, so that, when the factory inspector goes into a factory, he would not only consult the managerial staff, but also the shop stewards, the workpeople's representatives, in order to obtain all points of view. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear that in mind.
There is another point, which follows on the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam). We have had the privilege of being able to visit the industrial exhibition which is generally called the Home Office Museum. It is an experience and an education to go round that exhibition. I would like to suggest that, in the future, people who are acting as representatives of the work-people directly engaged in industry should be given the opportunity of visiting that exhibition. Hitherto it has only been full-time trade union officials and Members of this House who have had that opportunity, but the people directly employed on the workshop floor ought also to go round the exhibition, and I hope


that more opportunity will be afforded to ordinary workpeople to benefit from doing so.
Moreover, if we are to get from this Bill, when it becomes an Act, the benefits that we should get, this exhibition, or parts of it if we cannot transfer the whole, which I agree would be asking too much, might well be transferred to certain industrial centres, and I would suggest that the Home Office should consider doing that. Again, just as we know where the Employment Exchange, the post office, and the town hall are in every district, so we ought to know where the office of the factory inspector is. It is surprising how few people know who the factory inspector is, and where he has his office I would like to suggest that the Home Office should consider giving greater publicity in industry, and among ordinary workpeople in particular, to the fact that just as it is the duty of the policeman now to take a child across the road so it is the duty of the factory inspector to deal with any complaints which may be raised by the workpeople in a factory. The only way to get that done is to make it well known among the workpeople in industrial areas where the office of the factory inspector is and when and where he may be seen.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I may be pardoned at having the last word but one in this Debate. I have followed the Debates from the beginning, but I am not quite sure that we ought to distribute as many bouquets as have been thrown to-night. Metaphorically, the Floor of the House is strewn with flowers; I am almost afraid to walk among them. I do not think that they are entirely justified especially the remark of the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir. J. Haslam) that the Home Secretary had been a success in every office he has occupied.

Sir J. Haslam: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: Why did they dismiss him from the Foreign Office if he was a success there? I do not want to tread unduly on the bouquets, so I will leave it at that. This has been the most pleasant experience I have had in my 16 years' experience of this House. The Standing Committee was excellent in every way. The employers

were a bit stupid, but apart from that it was a tribute to this House that on that Committee there were men who had actually worked in the factories as carpenters, pattern makers, boiler makers, textile workers, railway shop men and so on, and when some of the Members of the Committee who were Members of the Conservative party and were educated in the universities thought that they knew it all, our men, who had actually worked in the factories, showed that they knew it better than the Conservative employers.
I want to make a protest against the colossal conceit of some Members of this House, not including myself of course. I must say a word about the attitude of mind of some hon. Gentlemen who will have it that the industrial legislation of our own country is the best in the world. Do not believe it. It is not. But it is the most natural thing in the world for the people in the representative assembly of their own country to believe that they have the best conditions. If we listened to Members of Parliament in Japan we should hear them argue that their conditions are better than ours, although we know that they are not. Let us make it clear, therefore, that this is not the best Factories Bill even in Europe. There are much better pieces of legislation dealing with factory workers than this Measure.

Sir Edward Campbell: On paper.

Mr. Davies: That is what the French say about us. That is what the Germans say about us. That is what every politician is saying about the other fellow's country. From the little knowledge I possess of industrial legislation in Europe, I know that we have not got the best.

Mr. Remer: We carry them out.

Mr. Davies: I will listen to the hon. Gentleman on other occasions. I regret very much the provisions relating to laundries and dairies. I trust the Home Office will watch very carefully what is happening in that kind of factory. It would be a good thing if the Department saw that factory workers were supplied with a pamphlet showing how the law acts in relation to them. I very much regret the provisions with regard to overtime. Not only are there provisions for overtime, but there are further provisions for relaxing the provisions of the Measure and allowing over-


time on top of the overtime that is legally allowed. The Government prides itself very much on having given way under pressure from our side in reducing to 44 the hours of labour of young persons from 14 to 16. That was an excellent move on their part but there is a proviso that in certain circumstances the 44 hours shall not apply at all.
This is a Measure more or less giving power to the Home Office to do so many things that in the end the Home Office will be a Cabinet and a Court of Justice in itself. On that score I trust that the benches of magistrates will be told one thing. It is no use passing laws and factory inspectors taking cases before the magistrates if fines of 5s., and in some cases 2S. 6d., are imposed on the factory owner. If I were a factory inspector, in view of their leniency, it would break my heart to take another case before that bench. It is time that was said in this House. The hon. Member for Bolton seems to disagree, but, if he reads the annual report of the factory inspector, he will find case after case where a fine of 5s. is imposed on a factory owner employing 400 or 500 people. In spite of all that, this Bill is far superior to the present law. Every party in the State has contributed more or less towards it. The trade unions and the employers' organisations have all been in consultation with the Home Office as to the provisions of the Bill. As far as I know, that is all to the good. I do not care, however, how much law is passed or how many inspectors are appointed. Unless the working people organise themselves and see to it that this law is implemented, it will be of no avail to them or to anyone else.
Having said that, I must pay tribute to the arduous work of the Under-Secretary. If I had had my way I would have appointed him Secretary of State and the present Home Secretary his deputy. I am thoroughly of opinion that in future Parliament and the people will pay more attention to factory legislation than they have done in the past. My very last word is this: In less than 10 years' time this Factories Bill will probably be regarded as out of date.

11. 0. p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I think the House will require me at this

time to be as short as possible in replying to some of the points that have been raised. I feel that I must say one word about what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said about the British factory code in relation to other countries, because I really think it is not right to say that there is any country in the world which has a better factory code than this country. It would certainly not be true to say that from the point of view of the enforcement of the law. There are certain countries that have factory codes that have not any factory inspectors at all, and I am informed that whenever the question of the enforcement of factory laws comes up at Geneva, the country that they always look to for advice in regard to the enforcement of the law is this country, and they always put a representative of this country in the chair when that matter comes up for consideration.
May I say one word with regard to the qualifications of factory inspectors, a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short)? It is true that university qualifications are usually required, and the House will appreciate that, in view of the great complexity of the factory code, that is rather necessary, but it is not an essential qualification, and we often waive it. The Home Office is fully aware of the importance of practical works experience, and there is a number of factory inspectors who have no university qualifications and who are extremely efficient inspectors. A point was raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) about the importance of securing the proper enforcement of the provisions in regard to means of escape from fire. The Bill gives the Home Secretary power to make regulations, and it is intended to use this power to lay down a general standard, and it will be the intention of the Secretary of State to issue a circular to local authorities to ensure as far as possible the uniform administration of the law in that regard. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) was, I think, a little hard on the Home Office representatives when he suggested that a smile was the only thing he got from them. If he would consider the Amendment put down with regard to bakehouses I think he would realise that he has been met to a considerable extent, at any rate.
There were some points touched on by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale), the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and others, on the question of when there would be another Factory Bill. I think those of us who sat through the Standing Committee upstairs, while we do not regret our work, do not want to start it all over again too soon, but it would be wrong to regard a period of 25 or 30 years in the future as being the period before we can bring in another Factories Bill. There is another important point in regard to that. This Bill again and again gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations. That is a very important aspect from the point of view of whether the Bill can be made to adapt itself to changes in industrial conditions, to which I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East, particularly referred. I think the House will agree that a Bill which has a very considerable part of its powers delegated in the form of regulations which may be altered from time to time is a Bill that is very much better adapted to meet possible changes in industrial conditions in the future. I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, and I do not propose to keep the House any longer.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution."—[Sir J. Simon.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [21st JUNE].

Resolution reported,

Orders of the Day — CHARGE OF NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

That there shall be charged on any profits arising at any time during the five years commencing on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, from any trade or business of any description (including, in the case of bodies corporate whose functions consist wholly or mainly in the holding of investments or other property, the holding of the investments or property), a tax not exceeding five per cent. of the amount of the profits."

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Kenneth Lindsay.]

Mr. Kelly: Surely, we are to have a word or two in explanation of this Measure?

11.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I shall be very glad to repeat what I said on the Financial Resolution, that this is simply an agreed Measure which has been asked for by the teachers. It allows the teacher to surrender a portion of his pension in return for the granting of a pension to his spouse or dependants. It enables the period of four years to be extended to five years, and it also allows the word "teacher" to be extended to cover "organiser" in the British Dominions or in Mandated Territories, or in a foreign country.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I ought to mention to the House briefly that this is a proposal under which the Post Office will be enabled to borrow the sum of£35,000,000, of which£32,000,000 will be for telephone development. It shows the increasing business in the Post Office. This will in no way be a burden upon the State, and it is also an indication of the progress of the Post Office that we are coming back for further sums to be borrowed so soon after the Bill which was brought in only two years ago. There is one important difference in the present Bill from the Bill that was produced two years ago. It is to enable us through the Treasury to raise money to repay to the


Post Office Fund any moneys that we may borrow for development.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Sutton and Cheam, which was presented on the 25th day of May, 1937, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Heston and Isleworth, which was presented on the 10th day of June, 1937, be approved."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.